BhForce

That's fine (that you're focused on technicalities). Re: Purewal's ego. I didn't necessarily claim that, but I said it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that was the reason for the rush. If it wasn't then let him state so live. Based merely on technicalities, he could have submitted his report and that would be that. The rush was to get his name in the history books, as far as I can see. Can anyone else tell me what the rush was?

So, not satisfied with starting up one fight in the Panth (regarding calendars), he wanted/wants to start up another: the birthday of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Maybe he's the greatest astronomer in the world (he's not, I believe he's an engineer, no?). But he doesn't have a lick of common sense or sense of priorities for this Panth. So all of our problems (Sikhs becoming patit, violent attacks on Sikhs, misrepresentation, drug and alcohol use, Christian targeting of us, police torture, 1984 issues, etc.) that's all going to be magically solved if we start celebrating Guru Nanak Dev ji's birthday in April? That's why I want him to come into the public to answer questions from the Panth, and not hide behind a bunch of technical PDFs.

Well, there's an additional consideration: That is that from his perspective, all that matters is getting his name into the pages of Sikh history. What he did not consider is what the wider Panth needs at this time and what benefit it provides at what cost. That should have been something the Jathedars were supposed to consider, but I believe they did not. I believe the benefits are meager and the cost has been high (division in the Panth). I fail to see why it was so important to ram through Purewal's calendar when we already faced with so many divisions (long/short Rehras, Amrit banis, Ragmala, Dasam Granth Sahib, nature of Naam, etc.). Why is it that we needed yet another division? Leaving aside all that Purewal may claim as the reason for his calendar, I want to know from him: What was the emergency? It's hard to see what other emergency there was than getting his calendar passed in his lifetime so that people could praise him during his funeral as "The Father of the Nanakshahi Calendar".

I believe that this is inadequate to the situation. For a change that would (ideally) be in place for tens of thousands of years (even 100,000), I simply do not see what the rush was to impose the Purewal calendar in a few years (not that that those years were spent in 24x7 meetings, rather just a few meetings here and there). The entire rushed process set up the possibility (and now reality) for the pushback. Also, the fact is that Purewal is man like any other, and he suffers from kam, krodh, lobh moh, hankar like the rest of us. It's not unreasonable to think that his desire to have his calendar approved in the timeline of years and not decades was based on his personal ego to be proclaimed through the ages as the creator of the Sikh calendar, just like Pope Gregory is for the Western calendar. I want to see his face, hear his voice, and listen to him engaging in discussion one-on-one with Col. Nishan and others and to answer their points directly, and not buried within a sentence or two of 10s of pages of PDFs on his website.

For a man that wants the entire Panth to follow him, I have never seen this man reveal his face in a large forum. If he wants the entire Panth follow his whims, he should have gone out into the Panth to build consensus and allow for people to criticize his "magnum opus". It is simply not right for him to go about what he did in the way he did it. He comes up with his desired calendar, goes through a secretive process to impose something on the Panth without the traditional sarab-samati (consensus), and then he wants to complain that people don't like it? If that's the way he wants to play it, he shouldn't be surprised at all if people attack him. Meanwhile, the only defense left for the vast majority of Purewal calendar supporters is to call supporters of the existing calendar "Brahmanists". Purewal should be man enough to do his own defense instead of leaving up to his fans (who probably don't know much about calendars).

OK, now you have credibility and we can have a discussion. Though I might not have time to fully flesh it out, might follow up as time allows.

This. The point of all that shastar talk and the bloody fights (some with the Mughals some with demons) is to build up the courage to get up off your sofa (or manja) and fight. Power is not holding a gun to every person in the country. Power is based on making everyone in the country consider the consequences of their actions. This is how police forces enforce the law. They do not have one policeman per civilian following him around.

The answer is that the ultimate source of gian (knowledge/wisdom) is God. People (prophets, avatars, rishis, etc.) obtain some level of gian. That's "Hinduism", or the Abrahamic religions. That wasn't perfect, though. The Vedas are not perfect. Guru Granth Sahib ji is perfect, however. The source was the same source (God), but Guru Sahib had a direct line to God because they were God. Your Hindu friend doesn't have to accept this, but that's what we believe. This also answers the question of similarities between "Hinduism" and Sikhism. The fact is, they got some things right.

OK, bro, I admit you are honest. Yeah, it is relevant because huge numbers of Purewal calendar supporters (it is not a Nanakshahi calendar) claim that the Bikrami calendar is a Brahmanist calendar. You might not be in that category (if you are, say so). The discussion of the calendar favored by Guru Nanak ji vs the calendar favored by Pal Singh Purewal can only proceed when proponents of the latter admit that 1) the entire Sikh panth has been using the former for the last three centuries and 2) that does not make them Brahminists.

1. You do know that that "Nanakshahi" calendar was not created by Guru Nanak Dev ji, right? 2. Secondly, could you please inform us what calendar Guru Nanak the Shah used?

Explain it by saying that they are a sect of Sikhs who practice beheadings so they can come after the jihadis. lol

What's the point of trying to tell her this? Are we expecting her to leave Christianity for Sikhism? Secondly, you gave no context for what it is you are quoting. People posted above that Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Sikh scriptures, so it would be quite confusing to read what you wrote below. For anyone who doesn't know, the quote is from a biography of the late saint Harnam Singh, a saint of the last half of the 20th century written by his successor. Finally the quote does not say that Jesus follows Guru Sahib's path, it merely claims that Jesus wants his followers to follow the Guru's path.

Seriously, bro, that's the reason? If someone makes up a religion with 20 leaders, will it be 2X as powerful as Sikhism? This is an important point. Even Christians don't claim that Jesus Christ wrote the Bible. Because it has a 100 or so more pages? That's an opinion that we might have as Sikhs, but what use is it to say to a Christian? Yes, that's true. None of the New Testament is really meant to be sung.

Thanks for the kind words. That's good, no one is trying to convert you. Most of the basic moral teachings are similar. The mode of worship or of salvation has differences.

One thing you have to watch for is people who "heard something" and are passing it on to you. The fact is no such event occurred (i.e., temptation). It's impossible to prove a negative, so if your friend insists that it did occur, have her provide the references and post it on this site so we can evaluate it. I suppose it may be possible she may be referring to the time that Guru Arjan Dev ji was being tortured to martyrdom, but that's simply not the same thing as being tempted by the Devil. Not as in an entity that stands against God. There is something called Maya, which is the attachment that humans have for the world.

Sikhs usually speak of prophets/founders/teachers of other religions like Jesus, Moses, Krishna, etc. with respect using honorifics like "ji" etc. That doesn't mean they believe in them as their saviors. There's no mention of Jesus in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

No, continue to do what you're doing. What you're doing is basically presenting one possible future. It's in our hands to possibly prevent that doom. It's possible we may not be able to fully prevent it, but as Sikhs, we're supposed to die trying. Trying to engage with the world and make the best possible future for our children is not lack of faith in God. It's God that gives us strength to face the monsters (like the Mughals).

So you're OK with mankind plunging into darkness for a few centuries? And we're to console ourselves with "it'll be just fine, 300 years after my child is dead"? I don't think you should accuse him of faithlessness in God. To the contrary, the Western liberals who are OK with jihadis in their midst (to the extent of giving them housing benefits) are the ones who don't have faith in God. It's exactly the faith of @MisterrSingh and others in God that seems to me to lead to their desire to confront the threat as opposed to just going along to get along.

Right, which is why Guru ji tempered piri with miri. We are not meant to be just a band of maala-wielding saints. We are meant to be (when necessary) warriors protecting the weak, too.

20 people were killed when Muslims attacked a church in the Philippines in January, but I definitely did not hear about it all around the media. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/26/bombs-target-cathedral-southern-philippines-least-19-dead/2693439002/

Is this the Muslim chick?

Bro, there's simply no reason a never-married person should have to settle for a divorced one (unless there's some other problem).

What a sad story. Again, we're not supposed to get divorced in Sikhism. What a loser of a so-called husband. I can't believe he would throw away his girls and wife like that.

The funny thing is so many of this sort will point various apparent contradictions or things they don't understand in Sikhism or Gurbani, but without a trace of irony go and embrace Christianity, which has a holy book of which not one line of which was written by the head (Christ). Oh, also she isn't supposed to have her head uncovered, or didn't she read that portion of the Bible yet? Also, why is she giving lectures to men? The Bible says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). Also, isn't so ironic that these women leave Sikhism because they think Punjabi men are too overbearing? What does the Bible have to say about that? It says the husband is pati-parmesher, LOL: 1 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV) But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Is she the sort that rabidly tries to Christianize every member of her extended family? She's a Christian now, and everybody has to become one?