Recent debate a questionable one. . .

[MrDoaba]

So are you saying to accept and tolerate are the same?

Nice analogy by the way

Depends on how you define the two yourself Bhen Ji. In the Oxford English Dictionary (because British English is the right one :biggrin2: ) it says:

Definition of tolerate

verb

[with object]

• allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference: a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent
• accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance: how was it that she could tolerate such noise?

One of the definitions of accept is:

Definition of accept

verb

[with object]

• tolerate or submit to (something unpleasant or undesired): they accepted the need to cut overhead

If you accept something the way it is then that means you AGREE with it. This is a very good topic. I'll use worldly examples. Watching someone burn and not trying to help..well that means you accept it. Watching someone lying on the side of the street who just got raped and not trying to help and walk by without hesitation...that means you accept it. A personal example would be me walking into my mama's house after taking Amrit and this just guy starts blurting out ohhh you're gonna cut your kes and my mama not telling him to stfu...well that means he agrees with it.

All the examples you've given are unjust situations and contain some sort of harm. Sikhi is the best example to use. Its similar to the example that ChuckSinghNorris Veer Ji gave.

There were people of other religions around and Guru Sahib didnt necessarily agree with their religions but still accepted/tolerated them.

If you accept and tolerate something it doesnt mean you agree with it.

Now if you add some unjustness and harm to the scenario.......Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji didnt agree with what the Muslims were doing against the Hindus but thats not because they agreed with the Hindu faith.......you can see where im going with this.

[TheFancyBanana]

If you accept something the way it is then that means you AGREE with it. This is a very good topic. I'll use worldly examples. Watching someone burn and not trying to help..well that means you accept it. Watching someone lying on the side of the street who just got raped and not trying to help and walk by without hesitation...that means you accept it. A personal example would be me walking into my mama's house after taking Amrit and this just guy starts blurting out ohhh you're gonna cut your kes and my mama not telling him to stfu...well that means he agrees with it.

Doesn't mean he agrees with him. The mama might be scared to say "stfu" to the guy. So he remains quiet. Inside he might be thinking that what the guy is saying to you isreally wrong but he doesn't want to speak up.

[Guest dasguruka]

Doesn't mean he agrees with him. The mama might be scared to say "stfu" to the guy. So he remains quiet. Inside he might be thinking that what the guy is saying to you isreally wrong but he doesn't want to speak up.

Agreed. my scenarios don't fit into this discussion. As well as looking at the discussion from a different point of view which involves Sikhi. But I didn't understand ..."Now if you add some unjustness and harm to the scenario.......Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji didnt agree with what the Muslims were doing against the Hindus but thats not because they agreed with the Hindu faith.......you can see where im going with this." I missed you on this Khalsa Ji. Can you explain please?

[TheFancyBanana]

Agreed. my scenarios don't fit into this discussion. As well as looking at the discussion from a different point of view which involves Sikhi. But I didn't understand ..."Now if you add some unjustness and harm to the scenario.......Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji didnt agree with what the Muslims were doing against the Hindus but thats not because they agreed with the Hindu faith.......you can see where im going with this." I missed you on this Khalsa Ji. Can you explain please?

Yes but Guru Ji is trying to show people have a right to believe in whatever they want. No one can use force to persuade another. Guru Ji did not have agreed with the faith but he also didn't agree with the mughals forceful conversions. Guru Sahib protected the people of India and the human right to believe in whatever religion you want to. By doing this he was actually carrying out Sikh teachings, of protecting the weak from oppressors and upholding justice.

[Raaj.Karega.Khalsa]

Not relevant to the topic.

Wow! the discussion is on the 3rd page already and no quarrels and fights yet....nice to see a sane-minded discussion for a change. I wish it could always be like this....

(I hope my post doesn't jinx it!! :blink2: )

[TheFancyBanana]

Not relevant to the topic.

whats not relevant?

[MrDoaba]

Agreed. my scenarios don't fit into this discussion. As well as looking at the discussion from a different point of view which involves Sikhi. But I didn't understand ..."Now if you add some unjustness and harm to the scenario.......Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji didnt agree with what the Muslims were doing against the Hindus but thats not because they agreed with the Hindu faith.......you can see where im going with this." I missed you on this Khalsa Ji. Can you explain please?

Veer Ji you said "If you accept something the way it is then that means you AGREE with it"

And im saying if you accept something the way it is, it doesnt have to mean you agree with it.

So at the time of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji there people of different religions around and Guru Sahib didnt agree with what they believed but still accepted them as they were, they were free to believe what they wished.

When the Kashmiri Pandits were being persecuted by the Muslims Guru Sahib didnt agree with what was happening to the Pandits but at the same they didnt agree with what the Pandits believed either. Nonetheless Guru Sahib still helped them.

My point was Guru Sahib helped them because the situation was unjust (like your examples). Whenever theres a unjust situation you're gonna help or well you should help even if you dont agree with that person on a personal level.

The OP asked "If you accept the way something is, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it or does it?"

She was talking about homosexuals. So lets say for example you dont agree with the homosexual way of life but you've still accepted them as a person.

Now lets say that homosexual is getting beaten up. You dont agree with the homosexual way of life but you'd still help them.....because the situation is unjust, theres no time for whether you agree or not.

[GyanParbodh]

This topic the panth should discuss as homosexuals are starting to come out (Sikhs included) about their sexuality. Akal Takht i know said no its not acceptable but it seems that was just a kneejerk response rather than learning what homosexuality is.

[Guest dasguruka]

Veer Ji you said "If you accept something the way it is then that means you AGREE with it"

And im saying if you accept something the way it is, it doesnt have to mean you agree with it.

So at the time of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji there people of different religions around and Guru Sahib didnt agree with what they believed but still accepted them as they were, they were free to believe what they wished.

When the Kashmiri Pandits were being persecuted by the Muslims Guru Sahib didnt agree with what was happening to the Pandits but at the same they didnt agree with what the Pandits believed either. Nonetheless Guru Sahib still helped them.

My point was Guru Sahib helped them because the situation was unjust (like your examples). Whenever theres a unjust situation you're gonna help or well you should help even if you dont agree with that person on a personal level.

The OP asked "If you accept the way something is, it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it or does it?"

She was talking about homosexuals. So lets say for example you dont agree with the homosexual way of life but you've still accepted them as a person.

Now lets say that homosexual is getting beaten up. You dont agree with the homosexual way of life but you'd still help them.....because the situation is unjust, theres no time for whether you agree or not.

Thank you!

[Raaj.Karega.Khalsa]

whats not relevant?

LOL! well, it was 'about' the topic but not relevant to the discussion going on or let's say the question OP asked.

I think it was a wrong choice of words. I should have typed "discussion" instead of "topic".