Lion(LK)King

Kurtas, recently he's started saying he was "counceling" the female...

As for Akal Thakhat not mentiong punishment, it hink they've told him to go pesh at Akal takhat, and they will decide if ther will/should be a punishment

Who judges who's post is constructive and who's isn't? Pretty rue comment considering International wanted to air his opinion, and should be free to do so. Do you seriously conside your own post constructive. Let's not judge other people's posts - you like it, accept it -otherwise leave it....

I think Nankana Sahib district has most Sikhs. I think I was told there were about 400 Sikh houses in Nanakana Sahib.

I was very proud to see one thing in Pakistan,  little children wear a patka from a young age. During my stay I did not see any apne with cut hair.  Contrast this with east  Punjab where "Sikhs" take their young children to the local barbers for a Bobby Deol haircut when they are not even a year old.  All this they do without any real parchar.  The Sikhs of Pakistan are very proud of their Sikhi and kudos to them for this.

There total population is not more than 20 thousand.

But the Sindhi Hindus also are ardent followers of Guru Nanak Dev Ji . They number over 2 million and some of them have taken Amrit. 

I urge you all to visit. It is a great experience and good to see something different to what we encounter in east Punjab.

151148[/snapback]

Definetly agree with you - they are extremely "pakkey" in their belief, and are a very proud people. The gurdwaras do not really have any of the rubbish rituals that have crept into Ind-Panj Gurdwares. Pakistani Sikhs are extremely proud of their identity and are very keen to do seva.

Meet a Sindhi Parivar in Nanakana Sahib - although they had cut hair they had a lot of ove for the teachings of Guru NanakDev Ji, and seemed to be following a lot of teachings of Guru ji, such as vandh Shakna etc - they litterally spent most of their day doing langar di seva.

Recommend everyone to get a Pakistan Visa and have a look around :lol:

Singh132 jeyoo, right now I do not have any evidence for what I wrote in my previous post, but will be posting that eventually, again I could be mistaken - I'm not saying what I say is written on stone...

As for debating for debating, not really, because I'm confused on some issues, and I usually tend to question things that seem common sense to others, just because of that...

But I still think the plant argument is lame... that because they don't have legs they can be eaten haha..

bhull chukk maaf :lol:

But I disagree with it being worn on ´weddings, I mean - what's tht point? but then I think in a way that if Kaur is princess, then kalgi shows you're the King, Royal

I dunnu, I'm confused, perhaps some learned Singhs like Singh132 could answer this?

But veer jeyo, although we are indeed his slaves, he also blessed us with "sardari", i.e royalty by giving Sikhs the Dastaar, Royalty, so although we are slaves of the Shabad, Guru Sahib definetly didn't treat his Sikhs as slaves, but bowed down to get Amrit from Sikhs...

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I've always wondered why Sikhs ar't meant to wear kalgis. I do understand that Bhai Nand Lal ji atributed the kalgi to Guru Sahib by saying that he's the one of the royal plum (kalgi), why shuoldn't Siksh wear ti consider Guru Sahib has made Sikhs his roop.

It's a genuine question, as to why not :lol:

bhull chukk maaf

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I've always wondered why Sikhs ar't meant to wear kalgis. I do understand that Bhai Nand Lal ji atributed the kalgi to Guru Sahib by saying that he's the one of the royal plum (kalgi), why shuoldn't Siksh wear ti consider Guru Sahib has made Sikhs his roop.

It's a genuine question, as to why not :lol:

bhull chukk maaf

I've been told it's given to Nihangs, who have done a loot of Seva, just like the siropai (unforutnatly given to every joe, tom and harry nowadays)

whats the difference? wether your bombing or leading a squad? the damage is still done to the enemy.

I tihnk most gore use the word suicide square for "Shaheeds", as they are ready to offer themselves.... But could be wrong though..

Guru Sahib taught the Sikhs to be very generous...even when giving out titles.

So THAT's why every second person is a 108 brahmgyani nowadays :lol::

Somtimes people think too much.

As far as I'm aware, they're on the right track then.

Guru Sahib gave us an "ukal" to think with, and not blindly accept anything.

Just like Guru Nanak Dev ji questioned every single thing in society, I believe we too have to question everything in order to be able to follow a path, without blind faith, and dogma.

So who do we ask when we don't understand - who should we question ?-

gur ibnu Goru AMDwru gurU ibnu smJ n AwvY ]

gur bin ghor a(n)dhhaar guroo bin samajh n aavai ||

Without the Guru, there is utter darkness; without the Guru, understanding does not come.

The reason for not eating kuthaa (butchered meat) is mercy.  Mercy is the source of Dharam.  A merciful person will not kill another animal for taste.  There are other arguments as well of course.

Who's definition of Kuttha are you using?

I'm not refuting that meat isn't allowed, all I'm saying is tha the plant argument is extremly lame, than we have no answer to it.

We don't have any objection to eating yogurt (which contains countless organisms and is in fact formed by those organisms), we don't have any objection to eating mushrooms and we don't have any problem inhaling countless organisms every day. 

What exactly makes it okay to eat mushrooms? That thy don't have legs, and can't run when being chopped?

You mentioned some "humane" methods of killing.  That ignores the whole process of bringing the animal to the place of butchering.  Do you really think that the trauma suffered is any less just because the actual death may (or may not) be relatively painless?  Just process of being brought into a factory that smells of blood and death and being lead to a machine covered in blood (no, they don't clean it after every kill) lacks mercy.  Death in a meat factory is not clean and sanitary.

1- In a lot of countries it is quite the opposite to what you have written.

as for smell of blood and death, most scientists (and I believe that Gurbani mentions this as well) is that an animal does not understand in conepts. Just like we feel pain, or fear etc, and can talk about it, because we've got WORDS for it, we've got a concept of pain and fear - animals don't - That's exactly what distinguishes us from animals. They might learn from trail and error, but they still do not understand in concepts. they do not know what death is. They may see a revolver, and FEEL pain - but it's unconscious - they do not KNOW they are feeling pain... You could surround an animal in a room with boody walls- it will still not understand that it's about to be killed..mercilessly... or whatever... they do not understand, or have that understanding - so bringing in an animal to a factory wil not cause any harm (I believe) to the animal. Although I do acknowledge that in countries like India, and some other countries animals are treated very poorly, being locked into small spaces (like chickens) - but would we have a different opinion, if they weren't treated like that?

It boils down to mercy.  If you want some kind of scientific formula about what is eadible and what isn't based on cell structure and nervous system information, I'm afraid I can't provide it.  It's based on common sense.

151226[/snapback]

It's not about common sense really, it's just that we ignore the fact that plants too, live, plants too have a jyot...

mÚ 1 ]

mwsu mwsu kir mUrKu JgVy igAwnu iDAwnu nhI jwxY ]

kauxu mwsu kauxu swgu khwvY iksu mih pwp smwxy ]

First Mehl:

The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.

What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?

If it was comon sense really, Guru Sahib would have made it clear, that don't eat this, eat that...

I do acknowledge the Hukamnama of Guru Hargobind Sahib jeeyo, that prohibits Sikhs from eating meat. Whether it's a Kurehit in Khalsa terms, can still be discussed ..however seeing as meat is a prohibited topic, and Gurbani clearly tells us to discuss other things, that would not be very wise :lol:

Bhull chukk maaf

Now, getting back to the verses you quoted from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Foremost, consider the context in which 1 Corinthian 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11 are written. They are instructions on congregational worship or propriety in worship. Paul is laying down an orderly worship conduct, NOT putting women down. If you take time to read little further, in verse 16, Paul says, “if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God.” An e.g. of this would be something like women sitting on one side and men sitting on the other in most of the Gurdwaras. Or, eating Langer whilst seated on ground, etc.

Which, as a matter of fact, is something Sikhs have recieved from the British. If we go to historical Gurdwaras such as Harimandir Sahib, we will see that everyone sits together in a chunk, without distinguishing caste, creed, gender, skin color etc.. This is definetly a Christian influence coming from the British. Most historical Gurdwarey don't have it that way. Just as British infuence influenced some Gurdware in India, Canadian, and British influence is bringing in Chair into langar hall - does it mean it's acceptable? uh-uh

God did not give men authority over women but in a family unit, He did allow Husband authority over his Wife. In Genesis 3:16, God said to Eve, “… your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To rule does not mean to oppress but to have authority in the parameter of family life over wife and children.

Seems pretty old fashion and sexist to me. most scientists agree that ohysically, men are stronger, but mentally females are "smarter", and mroe mature in making decisions, just tha men have oppressed women for so long, that it doesn't seem like it any more.

You quote Genesis 3:16 - WHy did you quote out of context. let's read what Genesis 3:15--17 says -

New International Version

15 And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring [a] and hers;

he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...A15&version1=31

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...A16&version1=31

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesea...A17&version1=31

King James

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Feel free to use any other translation, as they don't vary too much.

You are indeed a dubious character, coming to a SIkh forum trying to convince people that 'SanjaRa' can't be found through his Bani, which essentially is HIM

kih rivdws hwQ pY nyrY shjy hoie su hoeI ]4]1]

Says Ravi Daas, the Lord is nearer than our own hands and feet. Whatever will be, will be. ||4||1||

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/Page.asp?Sour...D=2517&Format=2

Sikhs don't search for God, because Sikhs are aware tha he's within us. Mind you he IS US. WE are his Children, He is our Parent, He is us (humans, not Sikhs haha)

In return, the Bible tells husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church…” (Ephesians 5:25) What was Christ’ love for the church (i.e., believers) like - He died on the cross to redeem the sinful humanity. What it means is that Husbands should love their wives even unto death.

Which reminds me, wat's your opinion on the gnostics, which clearly state that Christ Loved Mary magdalena as well (accordiing to non-bible versions, his wife)

What's so wrong with Christ getting married? Would it be against the law of nature? it would be following law of God..

God destroyed civilizations because of their paganism and evil among them. In Deuteronomy 9:4, Moses tells the Israelites, “… it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations.” You ask where is God‘s love? God, Himself, is love. (1John 4:16) and “This is how God showed his love among us … sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1John 4:9)

You seem to enjoy quoting out of context.

If God IS LOVE, and send his son as a sacrifise - WHY could he not have saved them instead of destroying them? Is this not being vengeful?

"Listen up- I'm God, and If you don't listen to me, then you're going to hell" - Is THAT the love? is THAT SanjanRa? Seems liek wrath to me...

The Bible says God’s “love endures forever” (Psalm 139), however, If you are of opinion that somehow you know more about love than God, our Creator does, then I must leave you to your inflated imagination.

That's EXACTLY where it should end. You have your opinion about God, Sikhs have their own. You go listen to what they have to say allow Sikhs to experience for them self. Just because you converted doesn't mean you need to drag others with you...

Finally, I have nothing to say about the Catholic Church or Roman emperor Constantine. Salvation, according to the Bible, is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the Catholic Church or any emperor. Whatever the Bible teaches has stood the test of time for nearly two thousand years.

Ofcourse you don't, since most historians concur that it was through emperor Constantine, that the Bible was made like it was, conllected like it is today, rejecting gospels not previewing Jesus as a Messiah....

Due to a VOTE - a CLOSE Vote.

It is evident from history that the only reason emporer Constantine joined Christianity is because of political reasons, as Christians were increasing exponentially. Ofcourse you don't have anything to comment about something that challanges the very root of Christianity being a separate religion. You talk a lot of pagenism. Just ask yourself where the "halo" seeen on every Jesus picture comes from, or perhaps where the Sunday being Sabath comes from. or Why Christmas is celebrated in December, when Jesus wasn't born then? Are not all of these pagan elements in Christianity? Where did they come from? Why did they come? most historians agree that they came from the very Constantine you refuse to comment about. The very Constantine who made it easier for the pagans to accept Christianity, as they wouldn't have to change their life style way to much, as the new Christianity was adjusted for pagans, with Pagan elements - for PAGANS!!!

Even on the cross, just like today, there were people hurling abuses at Jesus, spitting at him and taunting him to get down from the cross.

No-one is abusing Jesus, most people consider him as a good person trying to put people on the path of God, unforuntatly that Path is long gone, as soon as power-hungry people came in and started doing what they did (i.e Constantine)

It was the unfathomable love of God, which restrained Him, from destroying humanity there and then. As a result, there are people from all races, colours, ethnicities, creeds, tribes, and nations in the world, who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. When the Bible says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), the word “whoever” includes Indian, Chinese, American, Russian, African, Japanese, a person with or without hairs, with or without turban, etc. etc.

Does it include the "cursed" women?

God allows freedom to choose Him or reject Him but “it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” (Hebrews 6:4)

The Bible does not confuse people, but people get confused when their ego does not allow them accept the gift of God’s grace as revealed in Jesus Christ. There is no greater revelation from God other than an understanding that, it is sin, which separates us from God (We are NOT stuck in some re-birth cycle of 8.4 million species awaiting liberation,)

and Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross, paid the penalty for our sins.

Kind regards

Rajs

I ahve no doubt whatsoever that you have brought in concepts from Sikhi into Christianity, just like Constantine brought in pagan elements into Christianity. SOME of your views have a touch of Sikhi in them.

I encourage you to live the life of a True Christian, following the teachings of Jesus, and if you need to know anything more about how to becomre a true Christian please dontact ms514 bhaji (like he told you in the other thread :nihungsmile: )

If Jesus can accept the beating, spitting, scourging, all other manners of insult and even death for the sake of love for mankind – least I could do is listen to others’ views without getting upset.

I am however sure that Jesus did not come around with the attitude of "mai na mano" - I will listen, but throw it out as soon as I've heard it. You've listened, yet you fail to act. A lot of people have requested you to stay as a true Christian, and keep your faith personal.

However, Eve acted independently and was first to disobey God by eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6). Adam followed Eve and shared her disobedience to God’s command stated in Genesis 2:17. For this reason alone, because Eve, wife of Adam, took the lead in disobeying God, was told “… your husband … will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

Is tha all he told her -

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Quoted above. If you are a true Christian then be proud of what you believe, don't quote out of context..

The command "to be submissive to her husband" to wife, is not because husband is superior to her wife, but to avoid acting independently. Can you imagine a family with no one acting as a head? Everyone will be doing their own thing with total disregard to respect, order, manners, and care for others.

So why was the man made the leader- was the women not already oppressed tha she too should feel the glow of freedom?

Adam and Eve are the biological parents of entire humanity. Their behaviour and character were to directly influence us. That is why, God wanted to place a divine order in a family unit, which is a represented of divine family, where God is the Father of us all. Moreover, wife’s submission to husband is compared to the Church (i.e. Christians) submitting to the authority of Jesus Christ, see Ephesians 5:24. The submission is out of love, with a willing heart, and out of reverence for Christ! Nowhere does the Bible tell a husband to throw out her wife if she does not submit to him. In return, the Bible tells husband to love her wife as Christ loved the Church and died for it! (Ephesians 5:25) So, if on one hand, the wife is asked to submit, then on the other hand, husband is asked to love her to death! Now, in what context, may I ask, is women assigned a lower place at home?

1 - Fi you seriously believe tha Adam and Even are the biological parents, then I do sense a touch of danger in your belief,

If you stop quoting out of context, you'll certainly find such places.

When speaking of humility, the Guru did not preach sometihng and do something else, he did not live in duality -

ਕਿਆ ਹਮ ਕਿਰਮ ਨਾਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਨਿਕ ਕੀਰੇ ਤੁਮ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਵਡ ਪੁਰਖ ਵਡਾਗੀ ॥ki-aa ham kiram naanH nik keeray tumH vad purakh vadaagee.

What are we? Tiny worms, and microscopic germs. You are our great and glorious Lord and Master.

Guru Sahib calls himself a "keRa", Vaheguru.

ਹਮ ਕੀਰੇ ਕਿਰਮ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਰਣਾਈ ਕਰਿ ਦਇਆ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਰਗਾਸਿ ॥੧॥ham keeray kiram satgur sarnaa-ee kar da-i-aa naam pargaas. ||1||

I am a mere insect, a worm. O True Guru, I seek Your Sanctuary. Please be merciful, and bless me with the Light of the Naam, the Name of the Lord. ||1||

ਦਾਸਨ ਦਾਸ ਰੇਣੁ ਦਾਸਨ ਕੀ ਜਨ ਕੀ ਟਹਲ ਕਮਾਵਉ ॥daasan daas rayn daasan kee jan kee tahal kamaava-o.

I am the slave of His slaves; becoming the dust of the feet of his slaves, I serve His humble servants.

ਹਰਿ ਦਾਸਨ ਦਾਸ ਦਾਸ ਹਮ ਕਰੀਅਹੁ ਜਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਦਾਸ ਦਾਸੰਨਾ ॥੪॥੧॥

har daasan daas daas ham karee-ahu jan naanak daas daasannaa. ||4||1||

O Lord, make me the slave of the slave of Your slaves; servant Nanak is the slave of Your slaves. ||4||1||

The Guru himself calls him a "kiRa" (Worm, insect), "the slave of the slaves"

I tihnk that if your discussion started on a forum, it should end on a forum, and not go on to emailing people you think you can and want to respond to.

Please forgive me if I have offended anybody or made any mistakes.

Bhull chukk maaf

Animals beg and cry before being killed. They try to run away. When was the last time your carrot begged for mercy and ran away from you?

Tha's a pretty lame excuse. Why do we see everything in human terms.

Fiar enough plants don't beg and cry - but do you know for usre thta they don't have some other way of expressing animals cannot recognize?

Just as we cannot comrehend what or if plants feel, we cannot judge a plant because it can't run - Rabh made plants without legs. Are plants not living?

His argument is 100% legitimate, because alway many of us will see it as a lame argument, it does make sense if we really think about it, as we cannot comprehend plants in human terms, just as wel cannot comprehend Kartar in, human terms, liek race, caste, creed eye color, etc - Just as it's impossible to comprehend SaajanRa in HUman terms, we cannot use human terms like, nervous systems, or nerve impulses in animas, as they have entirely different physiological characteristics

One requires you to forget mercy while the other doesn't have any lack of mercy. That's why they call people "butchers". It takes a butcher to eat and create meat. A butcher can never have the mercy of Vahiguru.

In a lot of modern countries the animal are killed in a way that it doesn't have time to send nerve impulses to the brain to secrete adrenaline, and even if it is sent, adrenaline needs to be secreted. Although this goes extremely quickly, due to the fact that in most countries they have some way of immedietly making the animal unconscious, in other words it's not "awake" whilst it's being slaughtered, which takes a decimal of a second.

Am I justfying eating meat?

No way.

Am I saying we should eat meat?

Uh-uh.

I just think the plant not having legs, is lame.

How would you classify a Fungei ("khomba") 'mushrooms'

- They don't photosynthesize, i.e they are heterotrophs

- They "eat" (not with their 'mouths' haha) food, which is dead..

- They respirate, i.e don't give us oxygen, but take it from plants.

- They have cellwalls (I believe) - similar to plants'

- They do not have legs

3 arguments that makes it close to meat, and 2 that make it closer to plant.

Which one is it - can we eat mushrooms?

This is a genuine question, as I do not know, I've always been confused about it - What makes us be allowed to eat mushrooms, just that they don't have legs to run away with?

End of the day- Guru Hargobind Shaib ji Hukamnama pretty much crushes all other arguments, but the above questions remain un-answered. I still stand firm that plant argument is lame.

bhull chukk maaf

wow, havans, aarti, rakhri, castism, celibacy -- What's the difference between a Bahman and a Sikh nowdays anyway?

Fist picture is of Teja SIngh Samondri Hall

where yes Jagiro used to sit (I was pointing towards Harchadnd Singh longowal, but Jagiro was there too)

I used to get that to. It works for me now, because I realised you HAVE to type www. before it

http://www.saintsoldiers.net/

works for me right now...

Well, yes, haha I was implying longowal, but SGPC jagiro too

Last two pictures -

Guru Nanak Nivas

Room 47

A bells ringing yet?

Jathedar Dhumma (less than a year ago, a few months after passing away of acting jathedar....)

It's happening so many times - es vari "elder-a" te vakhra fark bhe jana?

I doubt very much - we punjabi's are very smart - we lost it as soon as we stopped being logical, something Maharaj told us to be

ISdhillon jeeyo, no mattter how much reference is provided - if we provide reference from Gurbani that what is being done there is manmat - will you accept that?

You've already made up your opinion, and unless your ready to change your jeevan after Gurbani, ther's no point in doing so.

THe reason I have massive respect for Samosa SIngh's response is that, they had FULL FAITH, they truely believed in

ਦੁਖੁ ਦਾਰੂ ਸੁਖੁ ਰੋਗੁ ਭਇਆ ਜਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਤਾਮਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥

ਤੂੰ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰਣਾ ਮੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਜਾ ਹਉ ਕਰੀ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥

Pain is the medicine and pleasure the malady, and where there is pleasure, there is no desire for God.

Thou art the Doer, I can do nothing. Even if I try to do something, it comes to nothing.

He did not see Gurbani just as a bunch of words, there but who cares?

They truely believed that it is only through Mahraj, Sache Paatsha, His Gurbani, the GURU, the Saajnra - only through HIM - only through BELEIF, FAITH, PYAAR for their GURU will they get somewhere. THey didn't loose faith in Gurbani. Only such a person turns his face towards someone else who looses faith i Gurbani. one who has 199% faith in Gurbani doesn't turn to someone else- because they don't NEED to turn t someone else. Those who have TRUE FAITH-

pauVI ]

hir ieko dwqw syvIAY hir ieku iDAweIAY ]

hir ieko dwqw mMgIAY mn icMidAw pweIAY ]

jy dUjy pwshu mMgIAY qw lwj mrweIAY ]

ijin syivAw iqin Plu pwieAw iqsu jn kI sB BuK gvweIAY ]

nwnku iqn ivthu vwirAw ijn Anidnu ihrdY hir nwmu iDAweIAY ]10]

Pauree:

Serve the One Lord, the Great Giver; meditate on the One Lord.

Beg from the One Lord, the Great Giver, and you shall obtain your heart's desires.

But if you beg from another, then you shall be shamed and destroyed.

One who serves the Lord obtains the fruits of his rewards; all of his hunger is satisfied.

Nanak is a sacrifice to those, who night and day, meditate within their hearts on the Name of the Lord. ||10||

Guru Sahib, Guru Granth Sahib jeeyo, Gurbani, has EVERYTHING - Gurbani IS EVERYTHING. If we want to get someone we need to approuch Guru Ji with Faith Pyaar. By turning to someone else simply shows that our faith lacks.

Bhaji/bhenji, there is no use in arguing, we disagree on this issue, and will not leave the "palla" of Shabad Guru, and pray that we do not loose faith/waver in Shabad Guru

Bhaji/bhenji, unless you agree to change your opinion if we can provide you with Shabads that go against what you believe in, there is no reason to argue, because you have simply stated youropinion, but are bent on not changing it, not matter how much Maryada, Rehit, Gurmukhs, Gurbani is saying.

Let's remember, if Vadhbhag SIngh got - where did he get them from? Ultimately Guru Granth Sahib JI, and through Khandey Battey di Pahul - so why should everyone go to him to get cured - why shouldn't people visist his dera to get cured/powers, if they can get powers from GURU SAHIb - the SOURCES OF ALL POWER. If he got powers from Gurbani, and Maharaj - then surely we should turn ourself to Maharaj too instead of someone else, who is ultimately a Sikh as well..

Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jeeyo

Bhull Chukk Maaf

"her mom says.... your fatehr is fighting for the gurdwara... so the infidels dont come and invade us"

Perhaps this should be mentioned as well, as Sikhs don't have any condept of infidel, or khafir, which could be mis-interpreted by non-sikhs...

Shall we focus on sikhi more than on other religions ? are we got more pakkay in sikhi that we decided to find more about other religion... Whether its the point of our general knowledge or whether its just us being curious about other religion, first of our main focus should be to pakay sikh bano pehalan fir doojeeyan deh history khaoojoo.. sorry if i offend anyone but having two or four topics on this is just too much?? isn't it ?

150635[/snapback]

Altough I agree with you, I still disagree with you

Guru Sahib did not tell us to learn things only from Gurdwarey or katha vachics.

I've got Jehava's witnesses knocking on my door to enlighten my about the greatness of God and jesus - which is great, because in that sense, I feel, I'm going Sangat and discussing the greatness of Akal, rather than just limiting myself to anything. This way it ensures that Daas actaully THINKS about what Guru Sahib is telling me. I've had some of them come and talk, and they tell me how merciful God is, when I question why God is revenging in Old testament, I can compare that to the greatness of SIKHI where Maharaj tells us, too mera pita too hai mera mata... I think we can learn a lot from Christians especially.. But yes I agree pellay Sikhi 'ch Pakkey hoye, in order to ensure that e're nto lured to believe what other say, blidnly and thus abandoning a diamond But I still think as a parallel we shoudl still be reading what other people have to teach, as we are Sikhs of the Guru, but do not mind learning from others either <_<

Let's not - not study other scriptures - let's do both at the same time - in order to learn to tolerate each other as human beings we need to learn to understand what other people believe feel, and where they come from when they discuss. It is essential for world peace that we human beigns understand each other, and to do that we need to learn where we're coming From. Don't you agree S1ngh? Are you not the one stressing inter-faith events? :umm:

Bhull chukk maaf

“From the women is our birth; in the women’s womb are we shaped. To the women are we engaged; to the women are we wedded. The woman is our friend, and from the women is the family. If one woman dies, we seek another; through the women are the bonds of the world. Why call women evil who gives birth to kings and all? From the women is the woman; only the One True Lord is without women.” SGGS 473.

“Someone is Hindu and someone a Muslim, then someone is Shia, and someone a Sunni, but all the human beings, as a species, are recognized as one and the same"

Guru Nanak Sahib X, Dasam Granth, Akal Ustat Page 51 Line 1 verse ||15|| ||85||

Just make a serch for "race" "caste" or some other keyword on srigranth.org, and you'll find aquite a few Shabads

Namstang, if Amritpal Singh opposes some of the traditions at Hazoor Sahib - then why do you insist that hazoor sahib has puratan Maryada+ Can you refute his research?

Ii you're saying that hazoor sahib has GURMAT MARYADA - then it goes agianst what Amritpal Singh says - which means you must have done some MASSIVE research to prove this. please provide us with this, as you keep on insisting it is THE GURMAT maryada.

Prof Sahib Singh is clear -

ArQ :—swrw AwkwS (mwno) Qwl hY [ sUrj qy cMd (aus Qwl ivc) dIvy bxy hoey hn [ qwirAW dy smUh, mwno, (Qwl ivc) moqI r`Ky hoey hn [ mlX prbq vloN Awaux vwlI hvw, mwno, DUp (DuK irhw) hY [ hvw cOr kr rhI hY [ swrI bnspqI joiq-rUp (pRBU dI AwrqI) vwsqy Pu`l dy rhI hY [1[

hy jIvW dy jnm mrn nws krn vwly! (kudriq ivc) qyrI kYsI suMdr AwrqI ho rhI hY! (sB jIvW ivc rumk rhI) ie`ko jIvn-rO, mwno, qyrI AwrqI vwsqy nwgwry v`j rhy hn [1[rhwau[

(sB jIvW ivc ivAwpk hox krky) hzwrW qyrIAW A`KW hn (pr, inrwkwr hox krky, hy pRBU!) qyrIAW koeI A`KW nhIN [ hzwrW qyrIAW SklW hn, pr qyrI koeI BI Skl nhIN hY [ hzwrW qyry sohxy pYr hn, (pr inrwkwr hox krky) qyrw ie`k BI pYr nhIN [ hzwrW qyry n`k hn, pr qUM n`k qoN ibnw hI hYN [ qyry Ajyhy kOqkW ny mYƒ hYrwn kIqw hoieAw hY [1[

swry jIvW ivc ieko auhI prmwqmw dI joqI vrq rhI hY [ aus joiq dy prkwS nwl swry jIvW ivc cwnx (sUJ-bUJ) hY [ pr ies joiq dw igAwn gurU dI is`iKAw nwl hI huMdw hY [ (gurU rwhIN ieh smJ pYNdI hY ik hryk dy AMdr prmwqmw dI joiq hY) [ (ies srb-ivAwpk joiq dI) AwrqI ieh hY ik jo kuJ aus dI rzw ivc ho irhw hY, auh jIv ƒ cMgw l`gy (pRBU dI rzw ivc qurnw pRBU dI AwrqI krnI hY) [3[

hy hrI! qyry crn-rUp kOl-Pu`lW dy rs leI myrw mn llcWdw hY, hr roz mYƒ iesy rs dI ipAws l`gI hoeI hY [ mYƒ nwnk ppIhy ƒ AwpxI imhr dw jl dyh, ijs (dI brkiq) nwl mYN qyry nwm ivc itikAw rhW [4[3[

not :—AwrqI—{Awirq, AwrwiZkw} dyvqy dI mUrqI jW iksy pUjX A`gy dIvy Gumw ky pUjw krnI [ ihMdU mq Anuswr cwr vwrI crnW A`gy, do vwrI nwBI auqy, ie`k vwrI mUMh auqy Aqy s`q vwrI swry srIr auqy dIvy Gumwxy cwhIdy hn [ dIvy ie`k qoN lY ky iek sO qk huMdy hn [ gurU nwnk dyv jI ny ies AwrqI dI inKyDI kr ky krqwr dI kudrqI AwrqI dI vifAweI kIqI hY [

You saying you researched more on Gurbani Than Prof Sahib SIngh?

You know more about Gurbani than Bhai Gurdas Ji? [shabad provided by Ms veer Ji]

vah jee vah!

Although I must comment that I like that you oppose black and white Sikhi, because SIkhi was never meant to be black and white - on controversial subjects especially...

Has been discussed loads of times on Sikhnet -

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion....33;OpenDocument

check the three links on the bottom of the page.

also have a look on sikhs.org comparison