Miscellaneous Topics

[Guest]

utepian: I'm surprised at that report too. I've watched "Great Indian Laughter
Show" in past and it's been a pretty decent show. Infact, there's this guy from Lucknow called Ahasan Querishi who's hilarious and has poked some fun at Jinnaha in past.

[Guest]

Hello Friends,

What if i say we all equally responsible for the Tragedy in Mumbai on 11/7.

Surprised ! Shocked. Ever thought this is just because we youngsters dont belive in voting and even if we vote we never do any check of the candidate we are selecting to represent if the have any past corruption of criminal offence record.

Give it a serious thought friends,please make sure that you know the past of the
candidate you are planning to vote becasue its starts form here.

Lets spread the word through this imp medium of communication and share this to
all we know.

Regards.Bhargav

[Guest]

Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, Jainism, Sikhism… the names of major world religions.

Let me correct myself here. Not really names, but above is how these religions are referred to in the English literature. Did you notice that it is only Christianity, which receives a suffix of “-ity”, while all others are named with a suffix of “-ism”?

I was wandering why! So I started looking at the literary difference between “-ity” and “-ism”. I have looked at many sources and here is how I can summarize the concise definition of usage of these suffixes:

“-ism” - Suffixed to an original noun “X”, deriving another noun meaning “doctrine of or about X”. Like Marxism, racism, or heroism.
“-ity” - Suffixed to an adjective “X”, deriving a noun meaning the “state or quality of being X”. Like ability, similarity, responsibility, or curiosity.

Assuming that the above describes both the disciplined and common usage of these two suffixes in English language, let us try to analyze our original question.

Are these root words - “Christian”, “Hindu”, “Sikh”, “Jain” or “Juda” nouns or adjectives? Grammatically, all of these are actually both. Depends upon from which standpoint are you going to use those words. But then here is where the finer distinction comes into the play! It is only “Christian” which has been given the status of an adjective through word “Christianity” whereas all others remain only nouns. But what would that imply?

Like almost all the isms, those religions remain implicitly defined as “an act or practice by some, or the doctrine or philosophy behind that act or practice” and remain in the category of all other isms which are founded, invented or propagated - activism, altruism, despotism, elitism, optimism, sexism, cubism, Marxism, pluralism and yes terrorism. On the other hand Christianity gets unconsciously classified in the most natural and neutral phenomenon of “ity-ies” like “humanity”, “ability”, “similarity”, “responsibility”, or “curiosity”.

Let us take another viewpoint here. Let us find some root word which gets derived popularly into both its derived avatars –ity as well as –ism. I could think of “nude”, which can have “nudity” and “nudism”. “Nudity” would mean the state or quality of being without clothes, whereas “nudism” would mean the philosophy or practice of living without clothes – just a concept, which is formulated or made.

See what I mean? Obviousely the proper word representing that natural religion of the followers of Christ has got to be “Christ-ian-ity” and not Christ-ian-ism, right? In fact as I am typing this, MS Word says “christianism” is not a valid word!

But as a matter of fact, Christianism is how that religion was referred to, until late. In Latin and Greek, even today, that is the name of that religion. Here is what Wikipedia used to say before they replaced it with something else. Fortunately I was able found it at answers.com:

http://www.answers.com/topic/christianism-1

Etymology of Christianism
Christianism, ending in the suffix "ism" [1], forms the name of a system of theory and practice, in this case religious, ecclesiastical, and philosophical, predicated on the name of its purported founder, Jesus Christ. Christianism is generally used in place of, or in counter-distinction to, Christianity, which, by virtue of its suffix, "ity", denotes a quality, state, or degree.

The word "Christianity" (Christianism in Greek and Latin) is not used in the New Testament (written in Greek). It appears, formally, much later in a seventeenth century English dictionary.[2]

The earliest usage of the term Christianism appears in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 - c. 107 A.D.), who says (in Greek) that the glory of the Christian is "to live according to Christianism".[3]

Writing in Latin, c. 198 - c. 208 A.D., Tertullian used the term "Christianismus" (see: Christianismus.it) in his text entitled Adversus Marcionem. [4]

1. The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, Vol. VIII, 113.
2. Thomas Blount, Glossographia, 1656.
3. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1979 (1915), Vol. 1, 658.
4. A Latin Dictionary, Freund's Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, Oxford, 1962 (1879), 328.

Let me admit, I have not been able to present my thoughts very properly. I would like to invite thoughts from enlightened fellow members to help me here with this. Another thing which I would like to think about, some other day, is: Difference between Hinduism Vs Hindu-ity or Hindu-tva and which one is more appropriate.

[Guest]

Bodhi, I have "Shadow of the Third Century, a Revaluation of Christianity" A
Book by Alvin Boyd Kuhn; Elizabeth, N.J. : Academy Press, 1949. In it is the very discussion. I will post some extracts from the book when I get to it, on and off, if that is alright.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pagan Christ or historical Jesus or both.
(The Pagan Christ (Recovering The Lost Light))
Catholic New Times; 9/12/2004; Blackburn, Barry


Tom Harpur's recent book, The Pagan Christ (Recovering The Lost Light), reminds me of the baby and the bath water.

For years, journalist and former Anglican priest Tom Harpur has been slaying the dragons of ignorance through his always insightful articles in The Toronto Star. He speaks for Christians who desire that the Scriptures and the church need to burst into fire again with a faith for the future. All of us need to recover the light of a renewed faith.

The title of his book, The Pagan Christ, is a key to understanding Harpur's thesis that the true interpretation of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures must be seen as incarnational: God becoming human in all of us.

Harpur has discovered in the life's work of two great scholars Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963) a marvelous key to unlocking the tree understanding of the Old and New Testaments through the study of ancient Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman myths and mystery cults.

<b>Massey, Kuhn, and now Harpur firmly believe that all of the sacred texts of the Bible are these Egyptian myths, and others--brought forward and re-written in the guise of religious history--are wholly allegory and myth like their true source. </b>

These scholars strongly believe that to interpret any text of the Bible other than as myth and/or allegory is to trivialize the scripture into a false, even idolatrous, historicity.

The Pagan Christ asserts that none of the bible happened in history, yet all of it happened/happens within us. God, it says, becomes known not in the historicity of the events of Scripture but through our humanity in our encounter of God as Christ, spark of the divinity that is each of us. Christ, in each person, lives, is crucified and is resurrected. The Son of God is you and I.

Harpur carefully reviews the parallels between the Christ myth in the ancient Egyptian Mystery liturgies, especially in the Roman Mithras cult of the Persian God of Light and the story of Jesus in the Gospels. <b>The parallels convince Harpur "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that he must stop understanding Jesus of Nazareth as a real historical human being. </b>

Instead, his discoveries cry out to proclaim not Jesus but Christ, the suffering and risen God incarnate: the spiritual reality of every human soul who is destined for union with God. The Christ myth of the Gospels is our deepest human meaning and truth.

Is Harpur right in abandoning the Jesus of History for the Christ of Faith?

I believe Tom Harpur is completely correct in his understanding of allegory and myth as root inspiration for the artistry of the Bible, but to declare everything as a re-write of the ancient myths is unconvincing. I believe Harpur is correct to see God in Christ within each of us. He is wrong, I believe, to assume that allegory and myth as sole interpretations of the Bible will dispense with history as ground of Faith.

Harpur states in his book that the early church Fathers tried to destroy the Pagan sources and Gnostic texts common with other orthodox texts and sayings Gospels because the Fathers were appealing to the Common Man in the street, whereas the followers of the Mystery Cults believed in an esoteric (hidden) wisdom truth beyond the ken of the poor and uneducated masses, who would "misuse, desecrate or pervert" it. "Fraud, forgery, deceit, and violence," says Harpur "became the tools the orthodox used to crush the 'heretics.'" The truth of the universal sacred myths, Harpur calks, "pre-Christian Christianity" became in the New Testament's historicity "pious frauds" or in his new coined term "Christianism." <b>He says the "rank-and -file majority who flocked to the new religion" (Christianism) were looking for an exoteric (literal) religion suited to the "lowest common denominator." </b>

The Pagan Christ reads like a battle between the esoteric elites and the esoteric rabble. Each class jealously guards their truth. <b>The few have their gnosis, inner wisdom, while the many have a more dumbed-down historical version.</b> To the victor went the spoils: The Christ of Faith AND the Jesus of History. For Harpur this is a bad news Gospel because it presents a historical Christ as an idolatrous Jesus: ultimate, unique and perfect and thus forever unrelated to us. The Christ is not within history, it is within us!

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, their root origin is in human experience dressed in the language of myth and allegory. Tom Harpur would agree with us that all religion is rooted in this generally recognized fact (Evangelical Christianity notwithstanding). Why then are most Christians and Jews not ready to completely dispense with history to embrace the belief that all scripture is allegory and myth?

What is unique about Judaism and Christianity is the belief that God is transcendent AND a God of history. To encounter God is a flesh and blood (sacramental) experience of our deeds of Justice. For Judaism, the human experience of liberation created their national identity and understanding of God as a saving God of people. Jeremiah proclaimed that to know God is to do justice: "He judged a the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me says the Lord (Jer. 22:16).

Freedom and the daily God of our actions go hand in hand.

So too with the Jesus of History. Jesus of Nazareth, contrary to Harpur, is not a man/ god forever other. He is the assurance of our deepest humanity that in "my flesh I shall see God" (Job 19:26). In our shared humanity we are at one with Jesus and with God. Humanity is the body of Christ shared WITH Jesus and with all others. Orthodox Christians have a real baby sucking in the bath water of history. This historic person is the start of their deepest human faith allegiance.

John Dominic Crossan put the balance of the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith profoundly, in his conclusion to his Jesus A Revolutionary Biography when he wrote:

"... I argue, above all, that the structure of a Christianity will always be: this is how we see Jesus-then as Christ-now."

Christianity must repeatedly, generation after generation, make its best historical judgment about who Jesus was in the past and, on that basis, decide what that reconstruction means as Christ in the present. I am proposing that the dialectic between Jesus' and Christ's (or Sons, or Lords, or Wisdoms) is at the heart of both tradition and canon, that it is perfectly valid. and that it has always been with us and probably always will be.

Editor's note

The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur has been on the non-fiction best seller lists in Canada for months, sparking much discussion and interest. Canada's best-known religious journalist, however, has not been met with universal praise in religious circles. CNT reviewer Scott Lewis SJ reviewed the book in our July 4, 2004 edition and called The Pagan Christ "both disappointing and unconvincing, "citing Harpur's "failure to anchor the argument in sound historical research. " The discussion continues here with Harpur's rebuttal and British scripture scholar Hubert Richard's own take. As well, frequent CNT contributor Barry Blackburn both praises and criticizes Harpur. The pot is still boiling.

<i>Barry Blackburn, a frequent contributor to CNT is a former head of religion in the Toronto Catholic school system.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Catholic New Times, Inc.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I guess, then "Literalism" is another qualifier in Religious - "isms" (in addition to ones Bodhi identified), so if I am following it correctly then current revision is indeed christianism... ?!?

[Guest]

Folks, what's with this ban on Daal from India in the stores here (in US)? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

The grocery store looked like a ration store today <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

The Indian pulse export ban of 2006 occurred on June 28, 2006 when the finance minister of India declared a ban, with immediate effect, on exports of sugar, pulses and wheat until the next harvest, due to domestic shortages. It will be in force until December 2006.[1] The ban was later extended until March 31, 2007.[2] This has pushed prices up in countries such as Bangladesh and the United States of America.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 16 2006, 02:06 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 16 2006, 02:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian pulse export ban of 2006 occurred on June 28, 2006 when the finance minister of India declared a ban, with immediate effect, on exports of sugar, pulses and wheat until the next harvest, due to domestic shortages. It will be in force until December 2006.[1] The ban was later extended until March 31, 2007
[right][snapback]53891[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

California and Mexico produce enough pulses. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most US type beans (navy beans, black beans, pintos, and lima beans), with the exception of green and yellow peas and chickpeas, are relatively unknown in India. However, US is now aiming to improve its position in the Indian pulse market including expanding the US supply of peas and chickpeas. Total pulse imports are forecast at 1.8 million tonne in 2006/07, up from an estimated 1.6 million tonne in 2005/06. 2004/05 imports included 6,43,000 tonne of dried peas, 1,32,500 tonne of chickpeas, 82,000 tonne of mung beans, 25,600 tonne of kidney beans, 14,100 tonne of red beans, 26,600 tonne of lentils, 2,38,300 tonne of pigeon peas, and 3,10,000 tonne of various other pulses and dried legumes for a total of 1.5 million tonne.

Major suppliers were Myanmar, Canada, Australia, and France. The US share was 5,000 tonne (mostly dried peas and chickpeas), or a mere 0.3%, mainly on account of uncompetitive prices. It is worth mentioning that the government of India has extended up to March 31, 2007, the arrangement to import pulses shipped from the US subject to fumigation by methyl bromide at the port of arrival in India
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 16 2006, 02:38 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 16 2006, 02:38 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->California and Mexico produce enough pulses. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Phew! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

Though indians boycotting Pakis goods may not effect Paki economy. But it is an action behind which all self respecting Indians can unite. I personaly never eat in a Paki restaurents (and i make sure the restaurent is not Paki owned when i have a doubt) or don't buy paki made cloths.

We would be surprised how many indians would actually support this.

Admins if this is wrong to post here feel free to move this post.

[Guest]

Not only Paki but from all terrorism supporting countries.

Yes, lot of people do. When you visit Indian grocery store, talk to owner and discourage him buying goods from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[Bharatvarsh]

Why just Pakistan, boycott every Muslim manufactured/owned thing as much as possible, the beggardeshis for example have countless restaurants in London passing off as Indian restaurants but in reality they are Bangladeshi ones, we need to boycott such rubbish.

[Guest]

Already boycott thulukan (muslim) goods. Also to make it easier, they do not produce so many goods too. Mostly juices, masalas, pickles and roasted vermicelli. but check the label for Unilever or other multinational cos, they could be manufactured in TSP. Also avoid going to Bong restaurants and shops (pizza and other fast food joints). Spread the word!

[Guest]

I think at this point it would be most efficient to focus our attention strongly on Pakistan. If we ask people to boycott all the Muslims, we might alienate more people who would other wise support us against Pakistan. We must infact starve Pakistan of its sympathizers and apply heavy and continuous pressure from all directions to bring it to its keens.

[Guest]

During Kargil war this campaign was very effective. Infact one of the members of this forum (and probabily another one) built a good website to this affect to identify some Pakistani restaurants and business which operate as Indian or some sorta Indo-Pak establishment. I'm not sure it's up anymore.

Playing devil's advocate here: what's the point on individuals boycotting Pakistani goods when the government of India has a open door policy with Pakistan? Why should anyone throw away that one Shaan masala pack when Indian government is ordering goods by tons? No point trying to insulating that little draft in the window when the roof of the house has gone and every door available is open

And guys, please support business in India - irrespective of religious affilations. Look for Made in India labels, not for made by community x or made by caste y labels. This crooked power hungry government has done enough to divide Indians, don't look to create more schisms.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 18 2006, 11:00 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 18 2006, 11:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->During Kargil war this campaign was very effective. Infact one of the members of this forum (and probabily another one) built a good website to this affect to identify some Pakistani restaurants and business which operate as Indian or some sorta Indo-Pak establishment. I'm not sure it's up anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Damn Some one stole my idea!!! i would love to help the guy in geathering data and keep the site up. if any one knows of it please let me know.


<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 18 2006, 11:00 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 18 2006, 11:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> what's the point on individuals boycotting Pakistani goods when the government of India has a open door policy with Pakistan?
[right][snapback]54055[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am a very very very very strong believer of the fact that the flow is the other way around. the govenment follows public opinion. if there are enough people united behind one cause government will follow it. If there are enough indians doing it The govenment would have courage to take strong steps.

[Guest]

Jayshastri: The site was http://www.boycottpakistan.com/
It's down now for some reason. I'm sure the guy just gave up since the whole movement fizzled.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And guys, please support business in India - irrespective of religious affilations. Look for Made in India labels, not for made by community x or made by caste y labels.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I never check caste (what a silly thing to do), but I do look for Hindu labels like respectful pictures of our Gods. The Christo-Islamics have enough funds running in from foreign churches and Saudi Arabia. Small Hindu companies only have us, so if there are two brands selling the same product and one is Hindu/Jain/Buddhist and the other is not, then I'm going to pick the first.

[Guest]

New version of Sabha report is out:
http://www.sabha.info/archives/sabha_21jul2006.html