MisterrSingh

19 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

No, don't get it twisted. I don't equate success in formal academic education, or an ability to express yourself as 'intelligence'. Some guys are not remotely educated but have an innate grasp of human nature and social realities that enable them to see the truth around them incisively. Formal education can be as much of an indoctrination than anything else (I'm sure we've discussed this before?)

But those people don't have a voice, or at worst are viewed with a considerable amount of condescension and mistrust. Such people are abandoned and left muttering on the sidelines at the injustice of it all, which is where it's understood that they can't affect anything. This status-obsessed world we occupy seems to assume that if you haven't "made it" there must be some serious deficiencies in the individual, and therefore most of what such people have to offer is taken with a pinch of salt or, at worst, even disregarded just because it doesn't originate from a place of supposed authority. So how does that particular individual ever transfer their thoughts and philosophies to tangible action -- in a system that perhaps purposefully yet unobtrusively makes it very difficult for those who don't follow the narrative and those without "official endorsements" to succeed -- when they aren't afforded the grace to do so?

You cannot participate and then win a game that is fixed. To even try and play is futile. So you either give up or you destroy the game, hoping there are enough like-minded individuals ready to flock to your cause to eliminate the idea of a disgruntled lone-wolf raging at an unjust world.

7 minutes ago, BhForce said:

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.

I wish it was as simple as that. In an ideal world where both parties adhere to some form of honourable conduct even in the most inhospitable of climates, that good-natured exchange makes sense. But we know real life is a lot messier and illogical. Sometimes, good men are implicated in issues not of their making, etc. In a climate where the benefit of the doubt is more often than not awarded to the female voice in order to apparently re-address societal injustices centuries in the making, I don't feel justice and parity are always the winners in these cases.

1 minute ago, BhForce said:

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. 

Difficult to disagree with any of that. But I'd add there are many ineffectual, weak, or downright foolish and ignorant men who have no business heading anything let alone the family unit. May God protect the wives and children of such men. 

3 minutes ago, BhForce said:

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?

She does it too eagerly and regularly for my liking, as if she relishes reminding us what we revere is just pages and ink to someone of her frame of mind. The tone is pointed and apparent to me, and I don't like it. If she's on this forum, she abides by the way we do things. I don't like the feint whiff of hostility lurking behind the manner in which she frames her questions.

One t

33 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Can you not feel the growing suspicion amongst intelligent people (of all backgrounds) regarding modern mainstream culture? I think they are suspicious of it but feel powerless against it. 

Define 'intelligent', lol. I'm know and am aware of many educated and erudite people, but I struggle to attribute the quality of wisdom and foresight to their cognition. The paradox of such a thing doesn't bode well, particularly when such people hold the reins to the fate of the majority. I can perhaps forgive genuine ignorance and inexperience, but self-interest and malice masquerading as benevolence is unforgivable. 

Do you see a future for people like us of certain values and frames of mind (across the races and cultures) in the UK and Europe, Dal? 

I'm surprised at the brazen besharmpunna on display at the moment. The man behind the curtain seems to no longer care that his presence has become known if you know what I mean.

The Sumerians and later Egyptians worshipped a Durga-esque deity; a female Goddess of war. There was an Akkadian personality who was named Naram-Sin. He is frequently depicted with the head of a lion, etc. Read up on ancient cultures and the deities they worshipped, and you'll begin to realise why our Guru Sahibs were so dismissive of the so-called Gods. It affirms your belief in the bachchans of our Guru Sahibs instead of creating doubt.

2 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Could be  but ram sita were human! That's the confusing part lol 

If you look at it from the perspective that Zeus = Jupiter = Indra = Horus = Thor, etc., then it makes sense. Ram and Sita weren't Gujarati, lmao.

All this talk of Homos is getting Ajeet excited. Tone it down, fellers.

6 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

is that ur b*hole ? man its ripped lmao 

2 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

There was a cataclysmic event about 12,500 years ago around the end of the last ice age.

It is quite possible there were creatures that are now extinct that existed then.

The Great Deluge. The old Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilisations wrote about it extensively. Of course, Christianity later absorbed those events into its own flood mythology with the likes of Noah and his ark.

10 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

HAHA ! what a pooofter you're ! wide-asssed pooff

44 minutes ago, puzzled said:

haha  it really does   its confusing lol 

It is, but in all seriousness there's constant adjustment about previously incontrovertible schools of thought in various scientific fields as new developments and issues emerge over time, so I wouldn't assume current scientific norms will remain unchanged for eternity. Who knows, perhaps there's wisdom and truth in the old ways that has yet to be fully understood by modern minds?

7 minutes ago, puzzled said:

  otherwise what was the purpose of millions and millions of years of just dinosaurs! 

The existence of dinosaurs throws a spanner in the works for many religious theories, lol.

5 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

answer not related to question at hand

Stop stalking me, faggot. It's embarrassing for you. 

4 hours ago, Christiangirl52 said:

So what does your Holy book say about the structure of the family? From what i see you have a strong societal value. 

You've been told repeatedly to stop referring to Guru Granth Sahib as a "book" yet you continue to do so. 

Recent research has uncovered that dinosaurs were considerably feathered as opposed to the exclusively scaly / reptilian images previously assumed to be the norm. If there were such creatures in pre-historical times, it might explain the accounts / renditions of such creatures interacting with the Hindu pantheon.

Mansion, Beema, and fit bird, innit.

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

most the slappers you see today that think they are "free"  will be the lonely old cows of tomorrow 

Never underestimate pathetic men who'll abandon their principles for a bit of attention and companionship. And thus the woman is rewarded and gratified despite her earlier indiscretions.

21 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Every Guru, prophet, angel, avtar, rishi etc that has been sent down to lead mankind has come in the form of a man 

And there's nothing wrong with it.

To be fair, though, there have been a few notable women who managed great feats in the name of God.

47 minutes ago, RajKaregaKhalsa1 said:

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.

Every human act doesn't necessarily need a metaphorical religious or spiritual justification in order for it to make sense. Some things just are. You can search the scriptures for all manner of reasons to justify nearly anything you like, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

3 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

They have done this for years, look at the Tanda Burj recently for example.

I'm staying away from this thread. I'm learning stuff I don't want to know, lol. This is infuriating.

3 hours ago, puzzled said:

I know right,  some how the kar sewa babeh havnt got their hands on it yet and demolish it and turned it into a marble gurdwara. 

They'll rename it Baba Gangu Ka Isthaan.

I'm surprised the house is still standing. Our lot love reducing historical buildings to rubble.