BhForce
-
Posts
2,891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
76
Content Type
Profiles
Calendar
Forums
Everything posted by BhForce
-
200 year old sikh build being demolished tonight!!
BhForce replied to puzzled's topic in WHAT'S HAPPENING?
This Taksali Singh denounces the Babas that demolished the Deori and the SPGC that allowed him to do so. He also says that it's the normal operating procedure of the SGPC to do something like this, then when the Sangat cries out, they "suspends" a manager or transfers him someplace to placate the Sangat. All lies. He also says the Babas hands should be smashed. Finally that every modification of a historical building should be published in the newspapers in advance. -
Why are you misleading him, bro? It's not like going to be in you're in charge of his amrit sanskar. "Guest Jas", in the normal case, the Punj Piyare will ask if you are married. If you aren't, they'll tell you to marry an amritdhari when you do get married. If you are married, they'll ask you where your wife is. The reason is quite simple: They know that married life is composed of both husband and wife, and you won't be able to live an amritdhari life without your wife. It seems that you have gotten far ahead of your wife in terms of Sikhism. Why did you leave her behind instead of taking her with you?
-
They immigrated to India, you know like the goray that come to work in Bangalore.
-
Opinion on Satguru? Satguru is essential to meeting God, no can meet God without Satguru: ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਿਨੈ ਨ ਪਾਇਓ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਿਨੈ ਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ Without the True Guru, no one has obtained the Lord; without the True Guru, no one has obtained the Lord. But if you're talking about that charlatan that calls himself "sadguru", that fool is no true Guru. Has God placed Himself within this fool? And also declared it openly? Has everyone who met this fool obtained liberation? Gurbani says the only one who is Satguru is the one who is God himself. Is this fool God?
-
OK, these findings are extremely interesting. Do you have a link for your blog so that these findings may be verified? How could that be? Isn't the system computerized? Or are interviews only given to specific individuals that are approved by humans?
-
You're saying it would be one side fighting according to the "rules" and the other subverting them in order to "win"?
-
Right, that's where #4 and #5 come in. That there's someone else above the man. This always has to be emphasized. Men should understand that if they are being abusive, the woman can go to her father-in-law, other relatives, the community, or the Gurdwara. (Yeah, I know, ineffectual.) But still, it should ideally all be part of a system. Total male control with no escape vale is bad. Feminization is a problem, too.
-
Hmm, OK. That's a subjective view. But maybe @Christiangirl52, you can try to say "in your Bani" instead of "in your Holy book". Anyways, what do you think about the substance of what she said (for us): 1. Man is the head of his home. 2. A wife must defer to him and obey. 3. Children must come below both parents and obey them. 4. But man is subject to God. 5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family.
-
Yes. All 5 things you said. But men should heed the last 2, as well: Man is subject to God, and he can't abuse his family.
-
Yes. All 5 things you said. But men should heed the last 2, as well: Man is subject to God, and he can't abuse his family.
-
Bro, with respect, she's not one of us, why should she be obligated to follow our norms? I called out someone on here for not putting "ji" with Guru ji's name. But he was purporting to be a Sikh. It's like the bread they hand out at the end of a Christian service. For us, it's fine (I think) to call it a "wafer". We could even call it a "communion wafer" to be polite. And she did say "Holy book" instead of merely book. Thoughts?
-
What did that old fool expect?
-
The funny thing is male feminists who insist that a husband and wife are supposed to be exactly equal. If this is true, do you think it would be OK for a woman to work and the man to stay at home? Feminists would probably say yes (though they would never want to actually support a man), but no marriage would survive like that.
-
ਕਿਆ ਮਾਗਉ ਕਿਆ ਕਹਿ ਸੁਣੀ ਮੈ ਦਰਸਨ ਭੂਖ ਪਿਆਸਿ ਜੀਉ ॥ What should I beg for? What should I say and hear? I am hungry and thirsty for the Blessed Vision of Your Darshan p762
-
Thanks for that. The reason that Jagsaw thinks Muslims are just fine is that they are still a small minority in the UK. Let them become a larger minority and they'll be a bigger problem. Let them become a majority and they will muzzle his free speech and put a faceveil over his wife's face. Even in the UK, they were walking around with signs saying "Kill those who call Islam violent" with no sense of irony.
-
What does that have to do with anything? It's like saying "Guru Arjan ji kept their hair (Sikh tradition)."
-
Bad statement. You need to clarify that much more. It's one thing for a woman to be "equal" to some man in, say, competing for a job, if they can both do it. It's another for a man and woman married together to be "equal". What does that mean? If they have a major dispute, how do they decide? With a vote? There are 2 people voting. How's that? The girl leaves father's house to live with her husband at his father's house. The house is own by her father-in-law. That's patriarchy, not "equality". No, they are not. The bride follows the groom. A formula for endless fights, and then divorce. If you don't want to follow a man, don't get married. I'm not saying that you should not consult with each other on decisions. But on an issue where you cannot come to a decision, you have to have a way to make the decision or to defer. But if both think that they are "equal", they will keep arguing and fighting until they get divorced. I think this is meant to mean that the first person if necessary to go and fight is the man, then the woman because she will raise the kids (obviously the man will too). Not sure correct and forgive me I'm wrong. Facepalm. When a woman grabs a hold of a man's palla and follows behind him, that means they are "equal". Do tell what it means when a man comes to someone (say the Guru) and bows before him. Does that also mean they are "equal"? Drop the need to please the feminists, bro.
-
Yes. This does not mean physical abuse, though.
-
If you're talking about what color the bedsheets should be, who cares? Let your wife handle such issues. The point is, who is the head of the household? The man is.
-
Yes. Obviously. That is, ideally. That's the entire reason the man is in front. The woman holds on to his palla, not the other way around. Grabbing a hold of someone's palla means that you attach yourself to him and he is responsible for you. Following behind him signifies that you see his as who you follow.
-
Wow, this is amazing. I also hope the babas don't demolish this historic relic.
-
49 people killed at New Zealand mosque in shooting spree
BhForce replied to dallysingh101's topic in POLITICS | LIFESTYLE
So (question for the UK govt): It's only a problem when the far right views the ISIS manuals? It was always OK for Muslims to read that stuff, radicalize, go fight in Syria, come back with a welcome? Not that I have any love lost for anyone who wants to use violence. -
The gospels were written as eye witness accounts of Christ's ministry. Large parts of the new testament were by Paul who wrote letters to the newly formed churches to guide Christians. He was a fine learned scholar who spread the message of Christ. The Bible has tremendous power, written by authors guided by God himself and is the most published and read book in the history of the world. When there are things written in the Bible ascribed to Jesus, Sikhs may sometimes say that he didn't write the Bible. The point being that that softens any criticism of Jesus himself. That is, you're not saying Jesus is wrong. You're saying maybe Jesus didn't say that. It's a way out from criticizing Jesus.
-
You know, you could write a few lines telling what the point of the video was so people can decide whether they want to take the time to view it.
-
They "modernized" their faith to remove horrible things like slavery or weird things like no woman can address men in a church. We didn't have that problem in the first place. We don't have such negative aspects, so we don't need to "modernize" anything. As far as keeping hair, that's up to each individual. No one is going around snatching shavers out of people's hands.