Jump to content

The Bible Says Jesus Will Return To Kill Everyone


Guest Singh

Recommended Posts

Since you seem knowledgeable about this, can you explain to me what jatha culture is, and why it is seen negative to some people? My parents believe in anything those people say.. Sometimes I tell them some stuff I learned online, and they tell me it's fake; but when people part of a jatha say the same thing at times, they believe them instantly.

Modern day jatha culture is a shadow of what is use to be in the past. The chief difference being there was always the unspoken understanding that the Panth comes before anything else; no Jatha or its spiritual leader, etc, was better or above any other jatha. It was just a different flavour of Sikhi, but like I said, the understanding was the Guru and the Panth was supreme, and that we are ALL brothers and sisters.

Nowadays... where to begin, lol. Power, ego, status, wealth accumulation, inter-jatha politics, jatha vs jatha ideological struggles, the fighting of verbal wars via proxy between jatha followers... it's an unseemly mess. The biggest fault I've noticed is the bare hate. Just the hate and divisions is so strong, almost like we're different religions or something. That's even before we discuss what happens behind closed doors. As AkaliFauj alluded to there's weaving of myths and legends about the respective jathas leaders (usually to entice and recruit mystically curious youngsters), bowing to his now empty chair / gaddi / shoes... too much to describe.

The unity, intelligence, and common sense has deserted those who have positions of authority in Sikhi. As for parents, just keep your head down and bide your time. No point in banging your head against a brick wall. We all know Sikh parents don't like being educated by their offspring, lol, so don't bother. If they're meant to see the light they will; if not that's their luck, or lack thereof.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You can't back this belief up and yet you degrade Shabad and Naam Simran to your lowly status of calling Jesus Christ a Gurmukh. These long winded post of yours provide nothing to the sangat other th

Hallelujah!!! Amen brother!

Surely this argument ends, where guru gobind singh, himself says in the dasam granth, that ALL prophets before him, were all egotistical. Page 139..."all earlier prophets ended themselves in ego. And

I'm surprised that some people believe in the Bible it's just a book of a 2000 year old man.

I'm a Christian and Christ is my role model, he's my guru.

As for the bible, I'm not an expert but I know there is some really good advice in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that some people believe in the Bible it's just a book of a 2000 year old man.

What r u talking about bro it is a book of god , y disrepect , there r really good christians saints in mt atho search it up

I'm a Christian and Christ is my role model, he's my guru.

As for the bible, I'm not an expert but I know there is some really good advice in it.

havr u seen the orthodox christians in mt athos, they known what they r talking about unlike some christians tiday

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that some people believe in the Bible it's just a book of a 2000 year old man.

Just because it's not sacred to you (or me) doesn't mean it isn't sacred to many others.

There'll come a time when Sikhi will also be 2000 years old, and how would you feel if someone from a new religion in the future said, "I'm surprised that some people believe in the Sikh scriptures from 2000 years ago." Learn to draw the line at loving your own faith and affording others the courtesy to love and follow theirs regardless of whether we agree with their doctrines or not, kinda like how our 9th Guru did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

The below is my own prespective from reading the Bible - the below will apply to the New Testament.

If you actually read the bible, you will see that the New Testament (the primary section dealing with Christianity) has parts. The gospels from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the story of Jesus of Nazareth. In this contains what can truly be called the life and teachings of Jesus. There is very good content here. What is said by Jesus himself shows as a reformer and a person who wanted to dissipate the fakeness that was prevalent in the preaching going on.

The other sections, from Paul (formerly Saul) the Apostle, Revelations and such are not quite the same type of content as the gospels. Contrasted to Jesus's message of reformation, simplicity and devotion, the chapters have a variety of themes. Paul the Apostle has a bunch of the compositions within the New Testament. Frankly, I took a lot of issue with Paul's writings, as they seemed to be at odds with the simple and religious theme of Jesus. One verse detailed how men should not keep long hair (seems to be the opposite of what was ordained to the region's people per the Old Testament) and women should only learn that which comes from their men's mouth (was not a fan of women learning). Revelations, seemingly attributed to a person named John, was about the doom and gloom that was to come. Again, this was not really in line with the simple message of Jesus as enshrined in the 4 gospels. One experiences a very dramatic change in tone and content when transitioning from the gospels to the other content.

Similarly, in the Old Testament (read most of it), there are glimpses of the true Divine - Psalms and (to a lesser extent) the Proverbs, that are truly prayers or compositions to the Almighty. Other parts are more historical and commentary in nature.

The Bible (specifically the New Testament) should be understood for what it is: it is a compilation of texts that were written many years after the passing of Jesus. Some disagree to the compilation itself and there are other versions and additional compositions that some consider should be part of the Bible. What pertains directly to Jesus, his life and message, is inspiring and uplifting. All other stuff - seems...not as inspiring and uplifting. Be it historical in nature, commentary of someone who supposedly is a devotee of Jesus (referring to Paul the Apostle) or having visions of the future (Revelations), they are not as in line with the Gospels' message. The Bible was not directly recited and recorded fro Jesus's mouth. You cannot read and analyze its contents like Gurbani, which was directly revealed and scribed AND THEN PROOFREAD AND EDITED directly by Guru Sahib.

Conclusion: Stop beating up on Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called Christianity for a reason.

The clue is in the name.

And Islam should be called Mohammedism.

Perhaps Sikhism should be called Guru Nanakism, but I don't know enough about the subject to form a proper comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

I'm a Christian and Christ is my role model, he's my guru.

As for the bible, I'm not an expert but I know there is some really good advice in it.

Ok, I apologize if what I said was offensive: the reason I did say what I said was because as Sikhs we believe in only Guru Sahib, (I was trying to tell Sikhs not to believe in it, the same way Christians would say all the other texts are wrong-some) not trying to offend Jesus.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

The below is my own prespective from reading the Bible - the below will apply to the New Testament.

If you actually read the bible, you will see that the New Testament (the primary section dealing with Christianity) has parts. The gospels from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the story of Jesus of Nazareth. In this contains what can truly be called the life and teachings of Jesus. There is very good content here. What is said by Jesus himself shows as a reformer and a person who wanted to dissipate the fakeness that was prevalent in the preaching going on.

The other sections, from Paul (formerly Saul) the Apostle, Revelations and such are not quite the same type of content as the gospels. Contrasted to Jesus's message of reformation, simplicity and devotion, the chapters have a variety of themes. Paul the Apostle has a bunch of the compositions within the New Testament. Frankly, I took a lot of issue with Paul's writings, as they seemed to be at odds with the simple and religious theme of Jesus. One verse detailed how men should not keep long hair (seems to be the opposite of what was ordained to the region's people per the Old Testament) and women should only learn that which comes from their men's mouth (was not a fan of women learning). Revelations, seemingly attributed to a person named John, was about the doom and gloom that was to come. Again, this was not really in line with the simple message of Jesus as enshrined in the 4 gospels. One experiences a very dramatic change in tone and content when transitioning from the gospels to the other content.

Similarly, in the Old Testament (read most of it), there are glimpses of the true Divine - Psalms and (to a lesser extent) the Proverbs, that are truly prayers or compositions to the Almighty. Other parts are more historical and commentary in nature.

The Bible (specifically the New Testament) should be understood for what it is: it is a compilation of texts that were written many years after the passing of Jesus. Some disagree to the compilation itself and there are other versions and additional compositions that some consider should be part of the Bible. What pertains directly to Jesus, his life and message, is inspiring and uplifting. All other stuff - seems...not as inspiring and uplifting. Be it historical in nature, commentary of someone who supposedly is a devotee of Jesus (referring to Paul the Apostle) or having visions of the future (Revelations), they are not as in line with the Gospels' message. The Bible was not directly recited and recorded fro Jesus's mouth. You cannot read and analyze its contents like Gurbani, which was directly revealed and scribed AND THEN PROOFREAD AND EDITED directly by Guru Sahib.

Conclusion: Stop beating up on Jesus.

The conclusion I got was that the Bible was not divinely inspired and the writers were not disciples of Christ. If that's true than The Sermon On The Mount isn't true either. Regardless Jesus was probably sent by Waheguru.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The people opposing you gave so many reasons, but you only have one, and you even refuse to consider logic much less views and opinions.

The secondary reasons stem from one main point that I have shown to not be an authority on the topic of Jesus Christ being a Gurmukh, etc. Highest authority and only authority is Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's Bani. End of story. If you feel there is another higher authority. Then say so and don't hid behind others.

And u accuse other people of being jatha mentality! Its funny cuz when u were against having kirpaan with u at all times, u said it was because logically it doesn't make sense there are locks on bathroom doors. Where is ur logic now?

I will not be subjected to this back handed cunning tactics. Be a man and post in the correct thread and we can discuss. To give a little flavor. Rehat does not equal Gurbani. Rehat has changed over the course of the Gurus and Gurbani has stayed the same. So there is the simple logic you Baba and jatha culture people cannot accept.

Your whole defense hangs on an ENGLISH TRANSLATION of dasam granth bani di tuk.this bani has symbolism, the greatest rhetorical devices, and diverse purposes/functions. Thats why ppl who read only English translation believe that bachittar natak isnt bani. So anyway, I think that translation should have been avatar not prophets. Prophets is paiganbar in gurbani and avtaars are avatars. Avatars r of course the Hindu incarnations that came before guru Ji.

What gave you the impression I rely on english translations? Or is this one of your cunning ways to take away the validity of my post based on Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's Bani? I really believe it is the latter. In the past I have translated the Guru's Bani myself from Gurmukhi to english on this very site. So your argument falls on deaf hears. Nice try though. Jesus Christ and every other so called messenger sent by God and actually sent by God is included in the Bani of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji. Plain and simple all lost to ego. Bhagat Bani was included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and those who passed the test are included in Gurbani. If there was one honest messenger/avtaar/prophet, etc out of them. Their writing would have been included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji like Bhai Mardana Bani is. Dhan Dhan Dhan Bhai Mardana ji who did the seva of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj. The Sikhs of today can learn something from him today. Leave Gurbani as is and don't add your manmat too it.

We know Jesus was a sant at least because he preached the same things as the bhagats. We can see this from some of the bible. You know love god, gods name, kindness etc

And Jesus Christ was against rituals and religious hypocrisy and friend of the poor just like many bhagats.

Equating Bhagats to Jeus Christ is an insult to Gurbani. Who are you to play the Gurus role and give such a high title, especially after Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji gave Jesus Christ the title of being lost in ego? Bhagats lived the word of Gurbani and achieved the title of Bhagat through Gurbani. Who gave the title of sant to Jesus Christ? Mislead individuals, who don't know anything about how the title of Sant and Bhagat is given and people who don't follow their own Gurus Bani; Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji. No one follows Gurbani these days. They have thrown Gurbani out of the window and started to preach their words. The world is mad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

The secondary reasons stem from one main point that I have shown to not be an authority on the topic of Jesus Christ being a Gurmukh, etc. Highest authority and only authority is Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's Bani. End of story. If you feel there is another higher authority. Then say so and don't hid behind others.

I will not be subjected to this back handed cunning tactics. Be a man and post in the correct thread and we can discuss. To give a little flavor. Rehat does not equal Gurbani. Rehat has changed over the course of the Gurus and Gurbani has stayed the same. So there is the simple logic you Baba and jatha culture people cannot accept.

What gave you the impression I rely on english translations? Or is this one of your cunning ways to take away the validity of my post based on Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji's Bani? I really believe it is the latter. In the past I have translated the Guru's Bani myself from Gurmukhi to english on this very site. So your argument falls on deaf hears. Nice try though. Jesus Christ and every other so called messenger sent by God and actually sent by God is included in the Bani of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji. Plain and simple all lost to ego. Bhagat Bani was included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and those who passed the test are included in Gurbani. If there was one honest messenger/avtaar/prophet, etc out of them. Their writing would have been included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji like Bhai Mardana Bani is. Dhan Dhan Dhan Bhai Mardana ji who did the seva of Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj. The Sikhs of today can learn something from him today. Leave Gurbani as is and don't add your manmat too it.

We know Jesus was a sant at least because he preached the same things as the bhagats. We can see this from some of the bible. You know love god, gods name, kindness etc

And Jesus Christ was against rituals and religious hypocrisy and friend of the poor just like many bhagats.

Equating Bhagats to Jeus Christ is an insult to Gurbani. Who are you to play the Gurus role and give such a high title, especially after Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji gave Jesus Christ the title of being lost in ego? Bhagats lived the word of Gurbani and achieved the title of Bhagat through Gurbani. Who gave the title of sant to Jesus Christ? Mislead individuals, who don't know anything about how the title of Sant and Bhagat is given and people who don't follow their own Gurus Bani; Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji. No one follows Gurbani these days. They have thrown Gurbani out of the window and started to preach their words. The world is mad.

I personally agree with 100% of what you just said.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think you've been unable to read between the lines and grasp the subtext of the article. It's a clear attempt at pitting Sikhs against some nebulous form of Islam, by equating medieval Mughal expansionism with its various contemporary terror-related forms. British-penned propaganda or a general West vs Islam perspective, it's doing exactly what you constantly highlight on this forum about us being "recruited" by outsiders as fodder.  The playful and almost throwaway tone of the article and its vernacular is also cringeworthy. Am I suggesting we leap into bed with Islam and its adherents? No. But I don't like attempts by outsiders trying to mine our painful and blood-soaked history to manipulate us into following whatever current strand of policy they've devised against one of the existential dangers facing them. Equally, intention counts for a lot. If the guy's aim was to flatter Sikhs and shed light on a quaint and once-proud warrior race, then fair enough. But I don't take things like this on face value. There's always a purpose behind it however faint. Your cheap little attempts at psycho-analysing and shaming me into conforming to your worldview isn't working and it never will. EDIT: Having just flicked through the website from which the article originates my suspicions were correct. It's a moderately right-leaning Spectator-esque online zine.
    • No, I just think you constantly over analyse the wrong stuff. This is just some simple bod 'boosted' interpretation of Sikh history from a purely physical perspective (as opposed to spiritual). What it seems to be trying to do is amplify Sikh bravery and independence in a very simplistic manner.  It's not dissimilar to what I've heard Sikh street guys talking just prior to going out to kick off with another group.  I don't think you can read very well, compared to a lot of stuff, at least this piece somewhat underscores a perspective that doesn't co-opt Sikhs to other causes. And if a brit white guy wrote this (below), he'd be being more honest than the vast majority of the rest of his people (even though the guy is obviously ignorant of the modern nature of the Sikh army under Sikh raj with his swords against canons comment). If he was a proper brit he'd be telling us about how grateful our lot were to be subjugated and used and abused by the colonialists: The Sikhs were better fighters than the Moghuls, when the numbers and the guns were anything like equal, and by the time the Brits arrived, they’d carved out their own state in the Punjab. They fought the Brits twice, swords against cannon, and were slaughtered, then flattered, then coopted—the classic Imperial method of dealing with brave but dumb cannon fodder, as in “Our dear Highlanders,” cannon fodder in cute kilts. 
    • So why would you want to keep dragging them back here, then?
    • If it was confirmed that a British white guy wrote that piece, you'd be all over it, castigating it as establishment propaganda designed to get us to fight under the banners of ex-imperial powers for their modern colonial escapades. You're very selective with what you choose to object to: it's not the actual substance of the message that annoys you but the vessel in which the message is delivered, yes?
    • I just think it's a simplified narrative designed to inspire a bit of fearlessness in Sikhs. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  There will always be some people who will misinterpret and maybe fly off the handle due to their own personality traits, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such accounts.  I tend to see these things as stepping stones or entry points for people to explore the ithihaas/culture in more depth.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use