Jump to content

Sikh Channel & Dudley Protest


Recommended Posts

If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?

:)

By that rationale, someone uses funds from Guru Ji's golak to buy some XXX-rated DVDs. Do we attribute the DVDs to Guru Ji because money from the golak was used to buy them? Where do you draw the line? Anything manmat is still attributed to Guru Ji? I thought you said the building wasn't Guru Ji's property? So now it is?

I apologise for being so blunt but you asked the question and I answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That scenario would be an abuse of the funds.

I'm talking about the building that you referred to in your quote below

It's a very simple question that you seem to have difficulty in answering.

Again I ask.

To answer your question above, because funds from Guru Ji's golak were used to purchase the building or fund it's construction.

If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That scenario would be an abuse of the funds.

I'm talking about a building.

I understand. Serving meat and alcohol in a golak-funded building is an appropriate use of funds from Guru Ji's golak but XXX-rated DVDs are not. Okay thanks for clearing that up.

It's a very simple question that you seem to have difficulty in answering.

Again I ask.

If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?

I told you I already answered it. If my reply is not to your satisfaction that is not my problem. Here, I'll paste my reply below if you can't find it on the previous page...

.....I use that term (Guru Ji's property) tentatively as the building may be in the committee's name, but any right-minded person would never consider a building used to serve alcohol and meat as Guru Ji's property. It's a huge insult to Guru Ji to suggest that, despite the activities that take place within it's confines, it can somehow be proudly associated with Guru Ji. It may be "Guru Ji's property" on whatever dotted line it was signed for, but for any Sikh there's not a chance in hell it can be attributed to Guru Ji.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so by your logic either the building was never owned by Guru ji, (even though Guru Jis golak was used to fund or purchase it) or if it was once owned by Guru Ji, (which you haven't admitted it was) the ownership was somehow magically transferred to someone else once beadbi occurred in that building!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so by your logic either the building was never owned by Guru ji, (even though Guru Jis golak was used to fund or purchase it) or if it was once owned by Guru Ji, (which you haven't admitted it was) the ownership was somehow magically transferred to someone else once beadbi occurred in that building!

:D

Like I said, a Sikh would never consider that building belonging to Guru Ji if meat and alcohol was being served in it. By saying that the building is Guru Ji's is implying that Guru Ji approves what was occuring inside the building. Once beadbi occured, it should not have been referred to as Guru Ji's property.

You're the fella that yesterday said it was Guru Ji's property. This morning/afternoon you changed your stance to "Erm...it's not Guru Ji's property" and now you're saying "Yes, it's Guru Ji's property!". Make up your mind!

I love that phrase "Guru Ji's property". I've used it so much today. Makes me feel all warm inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets get one thing straight the freehold was purchased by the gurdwara purely out of gurdwara golak funds........yes the building itself was built from other sources.......including a contribution from the nishkam sevak jatha and baba ji himself laid the first brick.....all these are facts!!!

guru ji's property/land has been used for immoral purposes...end of!!!

what we should be talking about is the woman spokesperson for the centre how dare she call mahraj da saroop...a book......further beadbi here to a national audience what a total disgrace!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use