puzzled

another thing and the main thing is that christian missionaries are actively out there with the motive of converting people, their aim is to convert as many people as they can, that is their main aim, with sikhs and hindus etc that is not our motive. this makes a big difference. one group is out there actively with the aim of conversion while the other is not. with one group with the given task of trying to convert as many people as they can and however they can VS a group with no interest in converting, then the "winner" is obvious. faiths like Christianity in india are predatory they are the chasers while faiths like sikh, hindu etc are the prey if that makes sense lol

true and like mentioned above know one tells you how to do naam simran and how it will help and about having faith. person who is is struggling needs that reassurance there also is a lack of emotion connection and sympathy, when they tell you to do simran and bani and everything will be ok they sound like robots in india a lot of these religious people are arrogant and rude as well.

yh we dont talk or open up about our problems and prefer to deal with them ourselves thats how i like doing it im not gd at listening to other people problems either all i say is "dont worry it will get better" lol never know what to say its always awkward.

Well I guess i would have to wait till I get married and see how it is then lol But I dont share feelings with anyone not even friends or family Its safer to keep feelings and problems to yourself, at least I prefer it that way and deal better with it. There are some things I would have to share though. Its difficult to open up with people, iv done it a few times and didnt like it very much. To much info out like that I dont like it. And I dont feel comfortable with that. Iv only ever once had a deep conversation with a female but that's because she had similar problems at home so I just opened up as well it didnt feel that bad because she could relate.

Women have gotten into the habit of getting everything there own way because they are women.

Its not just men though women in punjab end up looking like christmas trees when they dress up its just the culture there it's very camp and over the top. I remember my thias wife and her daughter asking me why most my clothes are black or dark blue. Men there wear every colour of the rainbow.

He looks like a creep. They all copy the punjabi singers. Punjabi singers have that look. Not sure where the punjabi singers got that look but I think it's their attempt to copy the west but they add their own twist to it lol. That whole loafer shoes with no socks look was in fashion in the uk like 7 years ago I remember back then lots of guys used to wear loafers with no socks, I used to work in retail on oxford street back then, a lot of Arab men also used to wear Gucci loafers with no socks, But in pubjab they've started doing it now. They imitate the west but add their own weird over the top whacky touch to it and end up looking really camp, Dont know where they get the crazy hair from though! The whole high trouser ankle showing thing was in yrs ago as well, they've only started doing it now. In about 2 years time they all gonna start wearing ripped Jean's

Iv got a feeling hes gonna get a lot of flak for this programme

I always thought of dharam as duty. Yes mazhab is basic stuff like islam and christianity. Dharam is above mazhab. Dharam is about experiencing the creator here on earth through meditation, through meditation you start destroying the duality and start experiencing oneness, the one creator. Mazhab is following a set of rules and obeying god so you enter heaven after death. No spiritual progress at all. Religions are a set of rules that's why people find it easy to understand these religions because they dumb you down and are basic, dharam is an experience which people find hard to understand at first.

It's not the married or not married, it's the sexting part you just wouldn't think amritdharis are into that stuff. You would presume that self control is an important part of being amritdhari. What if you have bani and listen to simran on the same phone ? And then send naked pics of yourself and sexy texts to your wife on the same phone? Is that ok? But like I said everyone does the same stuff these days anyway. Its only the presumption that amritdharis dont do that kind of stuff that makes the question funny

Yea true but when someone has depression, sick child, poverty and they are simply told go and do simran by one person and offered a heart to heart conversation with another, who do you think a struggling person will go to?

I didnt say it was not ok it's just funny lol People just have these ideas that amritdharis live differently and dont do things like sexting everyone does the same sh1t regardless. that's why it's funny coz most people wouldn't expect amritdharis to do that.

Dharmic Faith's are far higher than religion. It's a far higher thought. Dharam is about creating a relationship with god our creator by destroying the illusion of duality. Our ego creates separateness and makes us think we are apart from our creator. Religion like christianity and islam on the other hand agree with this duality and separateness they believe that god is separate from us and above in the heavens. In islam its blasphemy to say god is within us. That's why when Christian's and muslims in the past realized the truth through meditation their thought became the same as dharmic teachings, like persian saint mansur al hallaj who said I am the truth the radical muslim didnt understand that and executed him.

I think this stuff happens in our community more than we think it does.

Lmao you wanna keep your flame alight haha!

men should never show vulnerability or emotions to a women, especially his partner. or share their deepest feeling and secrets. women see that as a weakness and take advantage. women never share what they truly are feeling with men yet expect their man to tell them everything. share how you feel and your problems with brothers but not with females.

its rare to see one with a full dhari they just have goatees or other weird designs. them paghs are so starched that they actually move around like a hat on the head, i knew this one kenyan singh and he could move his pagh around while it was still on his head because it was so stiff gelling your dhari or using other products just completely damages it, i worked with a afghani sikh guy briefly he used some product that completely plastered his dhari to his face, his dhari had patches all over it! his mustache hair was really damaged and almost gone looked like a muslim mustache! dont know why people do that to their dharis using strong products can also make your dhari go grey a lot earlier as well.

really!!!?? around here most young people either have dhumalla/gol dastar or just wear a patka maybe like 15 yrs ago kenyan/british style was more common. see any video on youtube of nagar kirtans, samagams and other events and you will see dhumallas/gol dastars.

yh i think thats one of the differences, christians talk to you on a very human level, while sikhs and hindus dont do that tell them you have a problem and they tell you to do simran and bani and then everything will be ok and thats it

this the first video iv seen of his will check more out. lady talks more about her journey rather than the tactics the missionaries use. but she talks about how christians approach you when your in need of help and tell you that "god loves u" while hindus come around your house and start reading scriptures, christians have that human level conversation with you. her family were also approached by a christian when they were going through hard times and told that jesus loves them. she comes from a bhramin family and said that they let you keep your culture and bhramin identity but get you to worship jesus, that way the person dont feel like they leave their indian routes. she left the faith and became bhramin again after going america and studying the bible.

dont know much about him but i know he was against singhs banning interfaith anand karaj, remember watching a video of him and some sikh women talking against the ban on interfaith anand karaj

LOL that made me laugh i take that means hes a atheist lol

watched this documentary on bbc. the pedophile bishop peter ball had connections with members of the establishment who covered up for him including prince charles, margret thatcher and the archbishop of canterbury. prince charles even gave this pedo a house. shows you how all these elite politicians, religious leaders, royals are all in on it together. all these rich pedos are protected by the elite. one of the victims ended up committing suicide because no one believed the poor guy. he approached the church for help but know one helped him, he went to the police and the police gave the pedo and "caution" since when are pedos given cautions! two years later through his connections he ended up becoming a bishop again. the poor victim was fighting a a losing battle and took his own life in 2012. Friendship with Prince Charles made paedophile bishop Peter Ball 'impregnable' BBC2 documentary shows how establishment figures rallied round cleric Prince Charles with Peter Ball when he served as bishop of Gloucester. In a statement to the inquiry into child sexual abuse, Charles said he had been deceived over the ‘true nature’ of Ball’s activities. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock The disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball made himself apparently “impregnable” by cultivating friendships with Prince Charles and other senior establishment figures who later rushed to support him when he was accused of sexual abuse, according to a BBC documentary. Ball, the former bishop of both Lewes and Gloucester who died last year, boasted of his role as “counsellor to royalty”, Cliff James, one of his victims, says in the programme. He cultivated friendships with Margaret Thatcher, peers of the realm, senior judges and headmasters of leading public schools. The former bishop was investigated by police in the early 1990s, which resulted in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of sexual offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32 months. He was released in February 2017 after serving half his sentence. The second episode of the BBC’s two-part documentary, to be broadcast on Tuesday evening, draws on the testimonies of survivors and material and evidence given to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA), which conducted a case study into how the Church of England handled allegations against Ball. James said Ball boasted of his connections. “He kept mentioning his friendship with Prince Charles in a flippant way, [as] anyone would talk about a friend – but he’s talking about Prince Charles,” he said. “Here he was having a friendship with someone as low down as me … The next minute he’s dropping into the conversation, ‘oh, he’s counsellor to royalty’. It just reinforced his specialness and the idea he was impregnable.” The family of Neil Todd, who made the first allegation of abuse in 1993 and killed himself in 2012, said he had been portrayed as a liar and a “mischief-maker” by Ball’s friends in high places. At a hearing last year, the independent inquiry heard how members of the establishment, including the heir to the throne, the then archbishop of Canterbury and a senior member of the judiciary, rallied to support Ball. “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times,” William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry. “It is the story of how the establishment minimised the nature of Peter Ball’s misdeeds … and silenced and harassed those who tried to complain.” Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, which was read to the inquiry: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.” Charles later arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house to be rented by Ball and his identical twin, Michael, also a bishop. In a six-page statement to the inquiry, Charles said he had been deceived over a long period of time “about the true nature” of Ball’s activities, but denied he had sought to influence the outcome of police investigations. He said he was unsure whether he was told about Ball’s caution until 2009. In its report published last year, the IICSA concluded that the church had put its own reputation above the needs of victims of sexual abuse, and that Charles and other members of the establishment were misguided in their expressions of support for Ball.

Sunny is a atheist isn't he ?