BhForce

Look, I just wanted to say that I realized that this all might seem totally new to you, just because of your background. Maybe nobody ever told you that Sikhs aren't supposed to date, and that's why you think it's "interesting" what I stated. I assure you that I'm not making anything up, and there are multiple other tuks where that one came from. It's a well accepted a spect of our religion. I accept that you have a desire to firmly know the basis for a belief, too, and that's fine. Do please answer these questions that I asked above (they are not personal): 1. You surely accept the concept of dating is Western, do you not? 2. If not, go ahead and tell us the Punjabi word for dating. 3. State whether you are arguing from from Sikh tradition or Western mores.

No, I didn't mean that "you" as in @Akalifauj can't understand free will through discussions. I meant that "you" as in "one" or anyone (including me) cannot understand free will merely through discussions. The entire point to my posting the Gurbani lines was to provide support to your statement: The first line is basically your sentence, only in Gurbani terms: ਇਕਿ ਆਪੇ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇਅਨੁ ਇਕਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਲਾਇਅਨੁ ॥ Some, He causes to wander in the wilderness, while others are committed to His devotional worship The second line says that only those people understand who are given understanding by God: ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਸੋ ਬੁਝਸੀ ਆਪੇ ਨਾਇ ਲਾਈਅਨੁ ॥ He alone understands, whom the Lord causes to understand; He Himself attaches mortals to His Name. By saying that "you can't understand free will through discussions" I didn't mean to take a hard position on whether free will exists or not, merely to state that the full understanding whether we have free will and to what extent can only be known when God causes us to understand (ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਸੋ ਬੁਝਸੀ).

Go ahead and post those news articles or stories, please.

Right. It's important to keep that in mind. A new city was being planned, and religious places were built for various groups. It's not like Guru Sahib had any special love for the Muslims.

OK, that context makes sense, thanks.

What are you even doing, bro? I made an entirely uncontroversial statement that dating is not allowed in Sikhism. Now you want to ask me if I ever so much as said hello to my wife (if i have one) before the conclusion of the 4 lavan and ardas?? Talk about moving the goalposts! Also, I already answered your question. Why do you feel a need to ask a second time?

OK, that's fine, but it would have been good to note some context.

I think there is an additional aspect: Guru ji didn't go out to a random place and just start building a mosque for the sake of it, like KA. Rather, Hargobindpur was a new town, and Guru ji simply allowed a place for the construction of a mosque. It would be like new housing developments in Punjab leave a plot for a Gurdwara or a mandir.

You should ensure that she is at the same level of Sikhism as you, whatever that is.

I'd never say that a Sikh should cut his hair, bro. But for those who already are, I have to admit that they would want to marry a mona/moni. Sad, but reality.

Trying to get the best match for your daughter does not "void their Sikhi", bro. I mean, do you think Guru Hargobind ji married Bibi Veero ji to a beggar?

While I admit that's a large height difference, the point is simply: is she attractive? If so, her height doesn't really matter. If not, move on. Well, I'd agree with you if the parents would never marry the girl off. But there's nothing in making a request. If they get denied, they'll have to lower their expectations. When you go to buy something (a laptop, a house), don't you try to get the best deal possible? No problem with a girl (or her parents) wanting a doctor/banker/lawyer. Demanding a guy has a house and also that he not live with parents is not in accord with Sikhism. Her ability to bear your children. If she's pretty and pleasant, marry her. If not, move on. Her house is her father's house, which she is going to leave in order to move in with you. She's not expected to support you. You're to support her. I agree that parents should not blindly go for the highest salary. Rather, they should go for a reasonably high salary with a reasonably handsome man and good personality.

Sorry, but these questions are simply not "ridiculous". He's considering marrying his daughter to you. You don't think he should try to marry her to the best man possible? Yeah, because you're not the father of the bride. You might not care how much you earn, but he does. When your bride becomes pregnant, are you going to be able to support her in staying home for as long as she wants to? A wife and mother of your children is not the same thing as a male roommate. As far as the girl not having gone to university: it doesn't matter. Are you expecting her to support you? Just make sure she's healthy and attractive enough to produce healthy and attractive children. Or, if you're expecting her to support you, then it won't be that particular girl you'll be marrying.

No problem. Can you change the name of the topic (if possible) to something more descriptive than "controversial topic"? Like "Why did Gurus build a mosque?" Yeah, it seems problematic in that way. I think it's just a reflection of our tolerance. That it's OK to worship how you want to, and we won't force you to pray in the Sikh way. But I'm sure someone will come on to question whether our Gurus really had that mosque built, or maybe they just allowed the Muslims to build it. By the way, profit relates to money. The word you're looking for is "prophet". Huh?

Well, since you answered my question about whether you would date your sister (I did not ask whether you dated your sister, I asked a theoretical question about whether you would), I will return the favor by saying that no, I see no more reason to meet a marriage match than Guru Nanak ji did, or Bhai Mani Singh did, or anyone else did before the British showed up in our land. I would like to ask: If you disagree, then please state whether you are arguing from Sikh tradition or Western mores.

Mind-blowing, @Sukhvirk1976. Because we are talking in English on a board where the majority of posters are living in Western countries. The whole concept of dating came from the West to us. Asking "why are you concerned with the Western definition of dating" is like asking "why are you concerned with the Punjabi definition of maya". It's a Punjabi/Indian word, for crying out loud. 1. You surely accept the concept of dating is Western, do you not? 2. If not, go ahead and tell us the Punjabi word for dating.

It is no different a view than has always existed in our Panth, from the very beginning (Guru Nanak Dev ji's wedding forward). It only seems "interesting" because you're operating from a Westerner's perspective. Remove your head from his boots, and suddenly the view will become clearer, bro. It is inherently bad ... depending on what you or I mean by "dating". Well, I suppose if that's how you want to define it. However, do this experiment: Tell a Westerner friend that one of your Sikh friends was going to get married, and he went with his family to the girl's house and she and her family met him. And then ask your Westerner friend if he would consider that a date.

You're right, you were gracious in answering straightforwardly. I didn't mean to be evasive, but I agree I was terse. The reason I was terse was because I didn't think a whole lot of further elucidation was required. It would be if someone asked if we can embezzle money, and I replied with the verse that says you have to treat other's money as Muslims treat pork and Hindus beef. So I posted ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆ ਚੰਗੀਆ ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾਂ ਧੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੈ I.e., you have to treat women who are not your wife as your mother, sister, or daughter. And, on the off chance that you thought that you could date your sister, I went ahead and clarified, and you said no. So that settles that. Although, because you dispute this, I will follow up with another post.

I agree that Sikhism is 100% true. But that does not mean the other paths are 100% false. That's what the Abrahamics believe (that other religions are totally false). I don't really think there's any point to debating them, unless they want to attack us, in which case we can respond. But as for discussion (as opposed to debate), I think the reason we don't do that is 1) we don't have good English-speaking spokesmen who are also fully knowledgeable about Gurbani and 2) we don't have the courage to discuss such matters with non-Sikhs because we don't have our story straight. I.e., what's our belief on X? Or Y? Or Z? I think we have a soft underbelly which Christian missionaries will exploit.

Well, I was also extremely upset with him before. But he has calmed down a bit and posts some reasonably OK questions or statements.

Well, but I'm not claiming there is free will or not. I'm just saying that according to Gurbani, you can't understand the question of free will just by talking about it. Only when God grants you understanding can you understand it.

That's not true. Someone (I think maybe a journalist) who was accompanying Gill bought some pothis and the young sevadar on duty wrapped the pothis in a rumalla. If you put in around your neck, it's a siropa. On pothis, it's rumalla.

Well, what did he say? Exactly.

Why did you post this? This was white British, doesn't have to do with the subject matter of this forum, unless you would have posted why it matters.

No problem, bro, I have agreed and disagreed with just about every person (oops, there's that word again!) on this forum. Including you. By the way, why don't you just go to the trouble of creating an account? They are free. You don't have to enter your credit card number. It facilitates discussion. Sorry to say, it's hard to see how your use of blasphemous metaphors can be but anything but a demonstration of your estimation of the weakness of your arguments. You know full well I have not waved a kirpan or any other weapon around, other than my mere words. Your fear is merely of words, not a deadly weapon. Do explain like I'm 5, Jawan. Well, let's just stick to this one question: What is a baby? And what is a fetus? Do the words have fixed meanings? Or are they merely meaningless sounds? If the latter, no further discussion is warranted. Just because you think there's a difference between a fetus and a baby that allows the killing of the former, go ahead and define the terms in whatever way that you think makes sense, and we can go from there.