MisterrSingh

THEY BURN IN HELL!!!! THEY'RE BEATEN BY DEMONS! Nah, I'm kidding. It's a good question. I myself have wondered how the "system" for organising and processing these issues in the afterlife is designed. It would suggest, based on what happens here on Earth, that the followers of all but one faith will be disappointed, to say the least, when they're confronted by the objective parameters of the reality of in the Great Beyond. My theory, based on years of unhinged daydreams, is that every soul needs to incarnate into every belief system before "moving on" and completing a particular cycle of rebirth. If you're spiritually attuned, it's quite obvious to spot the people in their present lifetimes who previously belonged to a particular religion, or held certain beliefs, in a previous lifetime, because they carry over much of the baggage, attitude, and demeanour of their previous selves, which they just haven't been able to shed in their latest incarnation. So, what happens is they transpose that innate manner of being they've accumulated over many lifetimes, and it's continued in their present. There's no conscious desire to progress on a higher level. Now, you could argue the material world makes it impossible to keep these lofty thoughts at the forefront of our minds; that navigating life is difficult enough without the individual going to the lengths of conducting a parallel spiritual meta-narrative alongside their daily corporeal narrative, that is seemingly difficult to prove in an objective sense, and therefore increasingly viewed as non-existent and foolish in this age of spiritual decadence. Contrary to what's taught by preachers, transcending religion and becoming one with the Creator is not an overnight or one-lifetime feat for the vast majority. You have to earn it through arduous, countless lifetimes, and I feel in this respect many Sikhs will be immensely disheartened when they come to realise this in their own situations. But, yeah, keep following and listening to the corrupt God-men, lol. They've got your back... ?

I think you meant to post this in the Jazzy B thread. ?

They won't confront you with this openly, but Christians are taught to believe religions based on Vedic traditions (including faiths like Buddhism) are ultimately in homage to Satan and the many pre-Christian demonic entities such as Baphomet, etc. There is no getting around this fact. They believe the Great Deceiver is the God we worship, and we're destined to burn in an eternity of hellfire unless we're "saved" and diverted onto the path of Christianity. Whether they genuinely believe this to be true, or it's a justification tactic for the purposes of converting non-Christians stragglers who are easy prey for these people, I'm not sure. So whenever some chumcha Sikh community "leader" ends up promoting inter-faith dialogue with the Semetic religions, it would serve him well to realise that the people with whom he's sipping watery tea and shaking hands for a photo opportunity, believe he's a devil worshipper. If that's not enough to get through to some of our clowns, there's no hope.

Jhatka them and make a bhorji with the meat? ?

You are a fool. Civilisations fall, resulting in the deaths of millions, with men like you at the helm. If you are so eager for oppression and destruction, may your loved ones and their descendants be the first to be crushed under the weight of tyranny. Everyone loves a revolution when it's others far removed from their own who are undergoing the brunt of the change.

No, it's not even that, and you make it sound like "test" is a pejorative. As for problematic, that's a worryingly Marxist term that's white noise to me. Usually, adjudging someone's demeanour and the way they carry themselves and in the manner they interact with others, is enough to get a accurate handle on whether someone is worth the respect being potentially doled out. It's rarely, if anything, to do with appearance for obvious reasons. This can happen at a distance if a person is capable of reading signals. I don't leave my house in the morning under the assumption that every human being I encounter will be wort the effort just because they're alive. Withholding respect in the absence of any redeemable qualities usually entails, for me, keeping my distance and ensuring contact is eliminated or kept to a minimum at best. It's not being mean, aggressive, rude, or even generating an atmosphere of unspoken tension where it becomes obvious something is "up". On the subject of women, there's a whole other aspect of considerations that need to be taken into account when interacting with them in this day and age.

Preach, girl! ?

No. Respect is earned, not distributed without merit like sweets. It is neither moral nor noble to do what you're suggesting. The opposite of not respecting somebody IS NOT demeaning them. I view it as, "Wait and observe." Making the leap from not respecting somebody to the extreme of lambasting them or wrapping a cricket bat around their head, is what short-sighted, excitable third worlders do. The middle way of allowing them to display if they are in fact worth respecting is the only sensible route. Otherwise, just avoid and move on.

For existing?

Without wishing to go wildly off topic, casteism and intra-religious tensions and discrimination aren't limited to Sikhs. It's why an Arab Muslim would most likely hit the roof if his child got involved with a Muslim from Africa or in some cases even one from the Indian subcontinent. That's not a justification for its perpetuation, or an attempt to downplay its existence, in our community, but most people in the West are just very, very tired of it by now. I don't think it's the same back in the Mother Land, lol. Their appetite for caste-based social drama remains undiminished as ever!

If it's not caste that's used as a marker to discriminate, it's something else, such as how many acres zameen someone owns, or their skin tone, or the size of their 4x4. It's just never ending over there.

Imo, I don't think caste ever disappeared amongst Sikhs. It's a state of mind that's hardwired into people regardless of rekigion. It was subdued and genuinely grappled with by our Guru Sahibs, but once the masses assumed they were "gone" it just came out in the open again. As for your question in bold, the Christian vultures know caste won't be erased, but they can sell the hope that it will be, to potential converts.

In Punjab? A combination of social mobility in order to escape the caste system that Sikhs like to pretend is a thing of the past, BUT for the desperately poor Sikhs it's rooted in access to medical assistance, and to a lesser extent employment opportunities where "people know people" in these Punjabi Christian communities who can help them make a living. It's not some overwhelming rejection of spiritual ideology in most cases, but more of a practical, survival tactic. Yes, our wealthy, pampered religious hierarchy and jathebandia of all hues are responsible for this crisis, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Never knew the Royal Family frequented Punjabi circles. ? Although I did see someone who looked suspiciously like Prince Andrew trying to sneak into a Sikhi camp for kiddies. ?

For me, their conduct throughout their many incarnations indicates they were not of mortal origins in a spiritual sense. Miracles and such things aside, I find the low-key, "domestic" examples of their divinity to be more comforting and faith-affirming than any ostentatious displays of supernatural abilities, which, to be fair, were also occasionally in evidence when the situation dictated, but never in a self-serving or aggrandising manner. The Guru Hargobind Sahib and Baba Gurditta episode -- when Baba Ji was admonished by Guru Sahib for resurrecting a friend who'd died, thus overhauling the natural order of the Creator -- is a prime example of the situation I'm referring to. Guru Sahib's committment to hukam was greater than his filial connection to his offspring. How many humans would be capable of such unimaginable objectivity? I'm sure if these examples became known to the wider non-Sikh population, they'd be analysed and re-assessed as examples of toxic neglect or such other post-modern bukwaas. These clowns are in the early stages of pushing the "Jesus was gay" narrative, so I expect nothing less from these devils. ?

I was being facetious, i.e. sarcastic. To be fair, you quoted something that's not exactly recent, and I've developed my opinions and thoughts on the subject since that time. So, while I don't believe throwing them off buildings, stoning them, or whatever course of action others might look to as a solution, is acceptable, IMO medieval homosexuality was a non-issue for non-gay society. (The same can't be said for the propaganda-driven "acceptance" movement hounding contemporary society.) Therefore, of ALL the immediate and pressing issues facing the Punjabi people during the times of our Gurus, if they had prioritised two men bumming each other, wouldn't that strike you as base and unsophisticated thinking? Would you not begin to wonder that, out of all the myriad problems facing humans at that time, what exactly prompted that particular subject to emerge as a frontrunner on which we needed to be directed? It's the kind of thought a flawed human prioritises as important, not an incarnation of God. Perhaps when the issue of survival has been settled and the pressing matters of freedom, justice, and spirituality have all been established, then I might agree with expanding the field of discussion into other minor areas of conduct, but in a period of history when Sikh children were being dismembered and their limbs were being chained and hung as necklaces around their mother's necks, I'd begin to worry if the prevailing sentiment emanating from divine leadership was about how to curb the gay.

Ever projected yourself astrally? That'll clear up any doubts.

Whatever helps you sleep well at night. ?

It's fair to say that our experience of these matters perhaps depends greatly on our geographic location. So in that regards it's understandable if someone finds it difficult to entertain the thought of black hostility to Sikhs because their cultural environment simply hasn't formed around circumstances where such issues are prevalent. As someone who's born and raised in Britain, I've observed stark instances of aggression and hostility aimed at Sikhs originating from blacks in periods of recent history where the media has dialled up it's rhetoric against visual minorities of which orthodox Sikhs are arguably the most obvious. Then there's other isolated instances, such as on a bus or simply people passing each other on a street, when blacks feel emboldened to throw out comments about someone's dastaar or beard. Usually, I feel that type of behaviour can perhaps be correlated to what's occurring in the wider world. In other instances I can reach for as many logical justifications as I want if I were of the worldview that certain groups are perpetual victims and are incapable of wrong no matter the evidence to the contrary, but sometimes you've just got to attribute it to plain old prejudice. If it looks like a duck...

Like most things, it's not about castigating an entire group based on the actions of a few. Equally, denying others' negative experiences just because "you" personally haven't been impacted by those actions, isn't the sign of a person with a balanced outlook. It smacks of delusion; an unwillingness to acknowledge uncomfortable truths and the reality that others have experienced. People shouldn't have to preface every statement with the tiresome, "Not all of them." That should be a given in adult discourse. As for your original statement, I've met, seen, and heard a number of black individuals who have negative things to say about Sikhs based purely on their mistaken assumptions and prejudices. Which one of us is mistaken on that particular front?

You aversion for apne stems from an intimate familiarity based on experience. Black hostility for Sikhs, generally speaking, arises from a hodge podge of reasons ranging from media manipulation, ignorance, stupidity, envy, and just plain old bad intentions.

Tinnkerbell's a male.

It happens but it's very, very rare, and it takes thoroughly decent and sensible individuals on both sides to make it work. Sadly, as you suggested, it's beyond the capabilities of the average Punjabi.

Western secularism is an easy target on which to pin the blame when an individual or a group can't retain control over its people and their thought processes, but take a look back home and observe Punjabi and Indian secularism that has elements of Westernisation practised by people who haven't set foot outside their village. How's that managed to emerge when the people are surrounded by cultural and religious reminders and norms on an almost overwhelmingly constant basis?

Low IQ ethnics.