Jump to content

the abrahamic author of 10 commandments profit moses was a mass murderer of israelite pagan/hindus


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TejS said:
2 hours ago, puzzled said:

 But Im just saying that Sikhi does not deny that god chose these people to spread his message.. 

Sikhi pretty much criticizes and goes against their tenets, sayings and practices, and so I think indirectly it does deny the authenticity of their claim of being chosen by God.

No, bro, in the Dasam Granth, Guru Gobind Singh ji states that these other prophets (other than dhan dhan Guru Nanak Dev ji) were indeed "sent" by God. The problem is they didn't stick to the plan when they got here, and they promoted other names (other than the Satnam).

So just the fact that Gurbani criticizes their religious approach doesn't mean they weren't sent by God. They were, but they also went astray or didn't preach the complete and total truth. Same for the "Hindu" avtars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ਤਿਨ ਤਿਨ ਅਪਨੇ ਰਾਹ ਚਲਾਏ ॥

Tin Tin Apane Raaha Chalaaee ॥

All the great Purushas created by me started their own paths.

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੬/੨ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥

Mahaadeena Tabi Parbha Auparaajaa ॥

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੬/੩ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥੨੬॥

Arba Desa Ko Keeno Raajaa ॥26॥

Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26.

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੬/(੪) - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਏਕੁ ਪੰਥੁ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥

Tin Bhee Eeku Paanthu Auparaajaa ॥

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੭/੧ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥

Liaanga Binaa Keene Sabha Raajaa ॥

He started a religion and circumcised all the kings.

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੭/੨ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥

Sabha Te Apanaa Naamu Japaayo ॥

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੭/੩ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥੨੭॥

Satinaamu Kaahooaan Na Drirhaayo ॥27॥

He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27.

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੭/(੪) - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥

Sabha Apanee Apanee Aurjhaanaa ॥

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੮/੧ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥

Paarabarhama Kaahooaan Na Pachhaanaa ॥

Everyone placed his own interest first and foremost and did not comprehend the Supreme Brahman.

ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੬ - ੨੮/੨ - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TejS said:

God instructed people out of the blue in Abrahamic religions to spread God's message because they descended from Abraham, therefore based on lineage. There is nothing of that sort in the Dharmic religions.

Are you sure about that, bro?

I don't know why you had to bring up lineage to denigrate the Abrahamics. Dasam Patshah has already denigrated them (and the "Hindus") by stating that they fall short of the 100% truth of Satguru Nanak ji (which I agree with, of course). By bringing up lineage, you are forcing me to compare Satguru to a bunch of imperfect prophets, which I don't really want to do, but here goes:

Did not the entire line of Gurus from Guru Ram Dass ji to Guru Gobind Singh ji receive Guruship based on lineage? Is it not specifically mentioned that someone in the lineage of some Sodhi king will become the Guru in Kalyug (reference to Guru Nanak Dev ji)? Bedis/Sodhis, it's all based on lineage to Ram Chander ji, in the "lineage" of the Sun.

I think it's a losing proposition to denigrate the Abrahamic prophets based on lineage. Suffice it to say they were short of the truth.

3 hours ago, TejS said:

But if you have specific citations that claim this, please post them.

There won't be specific citations because Guru Gobind Singh ji did not write a 12-volume history of the Abrahamics, a la Arnold Toynbee. Guru Sahib just wrote a short composition that glances over the history of God sending individuals to preach the truth, and them failing.

You're being entirely too literal in taking the line that says God made Mohammed a king, and saying "See! It just says God made Mohammed a king. It doesn't say God made him a saint." I'm not even saying he was a saint. Merely that he was sent by God to preach the truth. 

And you can see that in the context of that section of Bachittar Natak, because that's how Guru Sahib brackets the mentions of the specific prophets/avatars/etc. It clearly shows how God is sending/instructing one prophet/avatar/whatever to preach the truth, and they fail.

3 hours ago, TejS said:

Also,  Muhammad was visited by Jibreel and there is no mention of this individual in the Guru Granth Sahib at all, so I'm not sure if Muhammad is referred to as a saint or simply a trickster.

Agreed that there's no mention (directly) of this in Guru Granth Sahib, but why does that matter? Not everything not mentioned in Gurbani is false. It doesn't even matter, though, if it's false or not, the point is simply that even if he did have some level of enlightenment, it wasn't 100% enlightenment, and he (like the others) made a mess of things.

By the way, I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that I'm one of the biggest anti-jihadis on this website, so I think you should know I'm in no way trying to big up the Prophet Mohammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BhForce said:

Are you sure about that, bro?

I don't know why you had to bring up lineage to denigrate the Abrahamics. Dasam Patshah has already denigrated them (and the "Hindus") by stating that they fall short of the 100% truth of Satguru Nanak ji (which I agree with, of course). By bringing up lineage, you are forcing me to compare Satguru to a bunch of imperfect prophets, which I don't really want to do, but here goes:

Did not the entire line of Gurus from Guru Ram Dass ji to Guru Gobind Singh ji receive Guruship based on lineage? Is it not specifically mentioned that someone in the lineage of some Sodhi king will become the Guru in Kalyug (reference to Guru Nanak Dev ji)? Bedis/Sodhis, it's all based on lineage to Ram Chander ji, in the "lineage" of the Sun.

I think it's a losing proposition to denigrate the Abrahamic prophets based on lineage. Suffice it to say they were short of the truth.

There won't be specific citations because Guru Gobind Singh ji did not write a 12-volume history of the Abrahamics, a la Arnold Toynbee. Guru Sahib just wrote a short composition that glances over the history of God sending individuals to preach the truth, and them failing.

You're being entirely too literal in taking the line that says God made Mohammed a king, and saying "See! It just says God made Mohammed a king. It doesn't say God made him a saint." I'm not even saying he was a saint. Merely that he was sent by God to preach the truth. 

And you can see that in the context of that section of Bachittar Natak, because that's how Guru Sahib brackets the mentions of the specific prophets/avatars/etc. It clearly shows how God is sending/instructing one prophet/avatar/whatever to preach the truth, and they fail.

Agreed that there's no mention (directly) of this in Guru Granth Sahib, but why does that matter? Not everything not mentioned in Gurbani is false. It doesn't even matter, though, if it's false or not, the point is simply that even if he did have some level of enlightenment, it wasn't 100% enlightenment, and he (like the others) made a mess of things.

By the way, I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that I'm one of the biggest anti-jihadis on this website, so I think you should know I'm in no way trying to big up the Prophet Mohammed.

I'd like to direct you to Sri Kalgidhar Chamatkar. A short summary of this incident involving various past prophets is described there. 

Before Guru Ji came to earth, he was still meditating on Hemkunt Parbat and while he was meditating there, there were also other people doing similar penances. But they all considered Guru Ji their superior (or elder/Principle) due to the fact that Guru Ji had attained Waheguru and met with him. 

Anyways the other beings doing Tapisya all had their Gurus and all of their teachers came to them in their visions and told them about Guru Ji and why Guru Ji was going to earth and not to stop him in any way. These beings included Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Shiva. Most of the Tapisyees there were cautious about going to earth in the first place as they could see how it would trap anyone. 

Sant Harnam Singh Ji also had a vision with Jesus (along with others) coming to visit him and telling him how he wished his followers would adopt the path of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

10 minutes ago, TejS said:

Guru Nanak Devi Ji contemplated and searched for the truth and eventually he found God. The Gurgaddi was then passed on to individuals that were deemed worthy, and this is evident in Guru Nanak Dev Ji passing over the Gurgaddi to someone who was not related to him by blood, Guru Angad Dev Ji, rather than his own negligent sons. This demonstrates that there was no monopoly on the Truth by a single bloodline. There was a certain circumstance that led for the Gurgaddi to stay within the family of Guru Amar Das Ji, and that was Bibi Bhani's request in return for her seva, whereby she was granted her wish for the Gurgaddi to continue on throughout the Sodhi family - her in-laws and the line of Guru Ram Das Ji. But I guess you already knew this, so I'm surprised you would equate this with the familial covenant that God chose on Abraham as if they were his "chosen people".

Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Bhai Lehna Ji were from the same family tree (the Bedis) so were blood related biologically, In Dasam Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Guru Ji mentions how the Gaddhi would always stay in these families (Sodhis and Bedis).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Not true.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji was Bedi lineage

Guru Angad Dev Ji was bhalla lineage

Guru Amar Das Ji was trehan lineage

Guru Ram Das Ji to Guru Gobind Singh Ji were Sodhi lineage

Read bachitter natak, it covers how long the gurgaddi would stay in the bedi lineage & the Sodhi lineage.... once you get a grasp of that you realise the sons of Guru Nanak were never meant to get gurgaddi..... so people who say Baba Sri Chand & Baba Lakmi Chand ‘failed’ as the sons of Guru Nanak don’t know what they are talking about!

I was under the impression that Bhalla/Trehan lineages also relate back to Bedi Clan as well and thus technically they were one giant lineage (extensions of the Bedi Clan) as they date back to the same forefather, or am I getting confused here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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...
 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