BhForce

No, Jagsaw, not me. I am not in favor of censoring you. I will honestly agree with you where I think you're right. And call you out for your rampant Islamophilia instead of keeping you in the shadows. That happens? Good that you're highlighting that. The ways of our ancestors were far better than what the medical establishment tells you.

There was nothing "racist" whatsoever in the post. He was not making fun of the racial characteristics of white people. He did not make fun of light hair, fair skin, straight noses and so on. Do you really want to argue that white water rafting is white racial characteristic? Disrespectful of what, exactly? You're a random poster. I have no idea whether you are a Sikh anymore than you do that I am. But assuming you're a Sikh, your religion requires you to, among other things, do paath at Amrit Vela. He did not make fun of your religion. Your religion does not require you do do whitewater rafting. How is it "disrespectful"? Is whitewater rafting something that requires special respect? Why?

Are you trying to say that there are some among us (maybe mostly those who aren't on this discussion board) who won't care at all that our heritage is being deliberately destroyed, but will get into a huff about some other nation's heritage buildings being destroyed? If so, I agree with you. It's the same mentality that leads us to cry for Darfur, Tibet, or whatever, and not a bit for our people in Punjab. (Not saying that it was a good thing for either Notre Dame or the Deori to be destroyed.)

What? Racist would be talking about something inherently related to ... people's race. I.e., their nose shapes, skin color, hair, etc. He mentioned no such thing. He just joked about aspect of people's culture which he finds useless. That's not racism.

That's good? Parents kick their children to the curb the moment they turn 18, and the children don't care for them either when they get old. Wonderful system. You'll only understand how "good" this is when you can't get up to get a glass of water. As far as "shaadi kar"? That's a bad thing? Really? Encouraging your kids to get married is bad? And that mentality is exactly why European countries aren't even giving birth to enough children to maintain the current population level. This, of course, will lead to a depopulation spiral and the death of their nations. Our coconuts, however, see that as a good thing.

You're a boot-licking coconut.

Agree with basically everything you posted. If you didn't love the Jihadis, you'd be golden, Jagsaw!

Yeah, exactly. I can't remember if it was Terry Milewski or Kim Bolan or some other racist "journalist" (actually propagandist) who wrote in an article that the reason for Sikh success in the Parliament is that they have a tribal system where the Gurdwara president "tells" people who to vote for, as Gurdwara presidents are warlords. The reality is no Sikh ever wants anybody to tell him what to do. "Who are you to tell me what to do?"

I thought you were going to talk about playing sports. But then you made it clear you're talking about watching other people play sports on TV. Agree.

What's that supposed to mean, exactly? Would you prefer if he had a mopey look like a loser when taking photos?

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Does he commit bajjer kurehits? Do you have any proof he doesn't do Nitnem? So what are you talking about?

What is a pseudo mahapurkh? And do you have anyone who fits your definition of it? A pseudo mahapurkh is a preacher who wears a chola that he disagrees with. A mahapurkh, on the other hand, is a person who wears a chola that he does agree with. For example, Dhadrianwale, wears a chola and says there's no God, no hell, no afterworld, no such thing as naam simran. He would be a mahapurkh Harnek the paapi could get behind.

I doubt that. You didn't list a single thing that you disagree with him on. No, you are blindly following Harnek. There are plenty of people trying to tear down Sikhi. Harnek has the absolute foulest mouth in this entire Panth. And you choose him as your guru? Oh, I'm sure that's true. Not. I'm quite sure you're presenting the best face of his critics. What, exactly, is the argument? Just calling Taksal names? The entire reason Sikhs respect Sant ji is that they support the political aims of the Sikh nation. That doesn't mean you have to agree with every little thing that they said. But Harnek the fool calling those fighters "gunday" just means that he's aligned with those who wanted to kill our people. Praise to you who thinks Harnek is some sort of prophet. Did you want to post what the stance is to discuss? If it was "staged", why does he pretend to be an "Amritdhari"? Wow, what a great accomplishment that would be. And what would the point be, exactly?

Welcome to SikhSangat, Harnek. Get an account (it's free) and we can talk.

Correct. But we're not "Indians". We are Punjabis. Of course, there are variations among Punjabis, as well. The races of people who are Sikhs in Punjab are generally taller than those who are Hindus.

Agree. Let's all put our petty differences aside for this one day. And then back to "normal" the next day.

Benti to @MisterrSingh and @puzzled: Don't call this charlatan "sadguru", please. See my post here. Would Christians call some rando "Christ"? Call this fool by his name, Jaggi Vasudev. Request to @puzzled to edit the title of this thread to "Opinion on fake Jaggi Vasudev/fake sadguru" ?

I disagree with this. Everyone knows that I am not sympathetic to Islam, but I want Jagsaw to present his Islam-loving arguments and then we can all refute them. That is much better than our people being burdened by the thought of "all religions are the same" and such. Better to get these things out in the open, and discuss and refute them than letting them fester. As far as why he was banned, I don't know, but I'm sure @S1ngh will make him promise to behave before giving him an account.

Yes, he is an Ummah sympathizer. But so what? He's a Sikh, and we should argue it out among ourselves. It's extremely frustrating to try to debate and argue with someone who does not have an account.

@ADMIN and @S1ngh, I call for Jagsaw's account to be restored. I don't say this because I'm a fan of his in everything he says. Everyone here knows that that I oppose his love for Islam. I don't know what he was banned for, but I'm sure it's been quite a while's punishment, hasn't it? If necessary, make him promise to be good, or put him on QC for a while. He has some stuff to say which is quite necessary, and other stuff which contributes to the conversation, if only to provide a foil to argue against. It's very difficult to have a conversation if you don't have an account and can't check notifications. Who else agrees? Note: This does not mean you agree with Jagsaw on everything he posts. I don't agree with any other poster on everything they post, but as long they observe a few simple rules, I don't know why everyone should not be able to post.

Jagsaw, could you repost? This video has been deleted. Or repost what you remember of the video.

The problem, bro, is that it seems that you have not based your views on Gurbani, but rather on your own mann (mind). If you have done "exhaustive research", why don't you share it with the rest of us? You want to condemn the entire rest of the Sikh world to doubts? You said Sikhism is based on love. So do you love the rest of the Sangat to enlighten us?

Unconditional love like haters of God being condemned to the pain of births and deaths? ਜਿਨ ਕਉ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਤੀ ਤੇ ਸਾਕਤ ਮੂੜ ਨਰ ਕਾਚੇ ॥ Those who are not in love with the Lord are foolish and false - they are faithless cynics. ਤਿਨ ਕਉ ਜਨਮੁ ਮਰਣੁ ਅਤਿ ਭਾਰੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਵਿਸਟਾ ਮਰਿ ਮਰਿ ਪਾਚੇ ॥੨॥ They suffer the most extreme agonies of birth and death; they die over and over again, and they rot away in manure. ||2|| p169 So is rotting in manure a manifestation of unconditional love?

I totally agree, "her scripture" condemns and punishes. For example: The sinners commit sinful deeds, and then they weep and wail. O Nanak, just as the churning stick churns the butter, so does the Righteous Judge of Dharma churn them. ||9|| Oops, that's Gurbani. p1425 ਸੁਤੜੇ ਅਸੰਖ ਮਾਇਆ ਝੂਠੀ ਕਾਰਣੇ ॥ Millions are asleep, in the false illusion of Maya. ਨਾਨਕ ਸੇ ਜਾਗੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਿ ਜਿ ਰਸਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਉਚਾਰਣੇ ॥੧੩॥ O Nanak, they alone are awake and aware, who chant the Naam with their tongues. ||13|| But why aren't all awakened? Why are only some? Doesn't God love them?

Where do you get this? Some new-age 3HO pamphlet? When has homosexuality ever been promoted in Sikhism? From the time of Guru Nanak Dev ji? Only heterosexuality has been promoted. If "gays are not looked down" by you mean to say that men can have close personal friendships with other men, fine. But men have always been encouraged to get married. Gurbani talks of the love and union of a woman and a man. Never a man and a man. The books of Sikh history never talk about homosexual unions. Where are you getting this? OK, what is that supposed to mean, exactly? You make sweeping statements. If a love is unconditional, that means no conditions at all, whatsoever. Also all means all, right? ਜਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸੇਵੇ ਆਪੁ ਗਣਾਇਦੇ ਤਿਨ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਕੂੜੁ ਫਿਟੁ ਫਿਟੁ ਮੁਹ ਫਿਕੇ ॥ One who, not serving the True Guru, praises himself, is filled with falsehood within. Cursed, cursed is his ugly face. p304. Does that sound like "unconditional love for all"? Sounds more like if you hate God and love yourself and Mammon, then you are cursed. ਵੈਰੁ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਰਵੈਰ ਨਾਲਿ ਧਰਮ ਨਿਆਇ ਪਚੰਦੇ ॥ Those who hate the One who has no hatred - according to the true justice of Dharma, they shall perish. ਜੋ ਜੋ ਸੰਤਿ ਸਰਾਪਿਆ ਸੇ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਭਵੰਦੇ ॥ Those who are cursed by the Saints will continue wandering aimlessly. p306