Would you be ok with your sister or daughter marrying a black or white Sikh?

[BhForce]

1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Secondly, I asked a simple question about whether you ever met or spoke to you wife before marriage.

Look, bro, I did not ask you a personal question (about whether you would date your sister).

It was a general question. I don't know if you even have a sister, or are a male in the first place, nor did I ask. I asked if you would.

I responded similarly to your question. I have already responded, and you have no need to browbeat me for personal information (i.e., whether I have a wife in the first place or am male, or whatever). It would be different if you were sitting right in front of me. I don't know and can't know if you are a Sikh, a Muslim, or whatever.

It's really strange for you to say that presenting a Gurmat doctrine from an actual tuk is being "holier than thou."

So let me ask you, do think the same of every single Sikh and Guru from Guru Nanak Dev ji onward?

[Sukhvirk1976]

20 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

Again these people are very petty.  They are the same people who will try to execute Gurmukhs if they get the chance.  They worship the devil.

So you believe in the devil? Interesting 

[Sukhvirk1976]

3 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Look, bro, I did not ask you a personal question (about whether you would date your sister).

It was a general question. I don't know if you even have a sister, or are a male in the first place, nor did I ask. I asked if you would.

I responded similarly to your question. I have already responded, and you have no need to browbeat me for personal information (i.e., whether I have a wife in the first place or am male, or whatever). It would be different if you were sitting right in front of me. I don't know and can't know if you are a Sikh, a Muslim, or whatever.

It's really strange for you to say that presenting a Gurmat doctrine from an actual tuk is being "holier than thou."

So let me ask you, do think the same of every single Sikh and Guru from Guru Nanak Dev ji onward?

Can you please share the tuk? 

Apologies if I have missed something. My intentions are not to offend simply to engage in khoj and as far as I know the only way to do that is to engage in exegesis of scripture in 

[BhForce]

1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Secondly, I asked a simple question about whether you ever met or spoke to you wife before marriage.. It was to draw out a flaw in your assertion that any woman other than your wife should be treated as a sister.

Well, then.

You seem to think that the way of marriage of every Sikh before the advent of dating is, as you put it, "interesting".

You seem to have put the entire thrust of your argument on whether I saw my wife before marriage or not. (By the way, Guru Nanak ji did not, just in case you think they were weird, too.) 

And also, I think you're problem is not with me, but rather with Bhai Gurdas ji and Guru Sahib and their faithful Sikhs who don't go bar-crawling for sexual partners.

Anyway, let me ask: 

1) according to you, does the Sikh philosophy of treating women only stand if I didn't see my wife before marriage?

2) or does it still stand if certain Sikhs (like during the time of the 10 Gurus) didn't date.

3) and if #1 or #2 are accepted, then will you accept the Gurmat view of treating women?

If you won't accept #3, then why even ask?

[Akalifauj]

8 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Ahh diddums... If your definition of a troll is being asked a question that gets you shook then fair enough.. 

You should try and live in chardi kala bro..especially with a handle like Akalifauj 

You think because I called you a troll I am rattled.  This name was given to you in the first day of you spreading your propaganda on this forum.  It is a consensus among senior posters here you are a troll.   Have you noticed how the admin who you questioned has not responded to you.  Why do you think that is? Because he knows you are not here for learning or development of the Khalsa panth.   You have one motive and that is to be a troll.  

[BhForce]

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Apologies if I have missed something. My intentions are not to offend simply to engage in khoj and as far as I know the only way to do that is to engage in exegesis of scripture in 

No problem, I welcome spirited debate, including getting into the nitty-gritty, but then you also have to be prepared for questioning in return.

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Can you please share the tuk? 

ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆ ਚੰਗੀਆ ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾਂ ਧੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੈ।

Vaar 29, Pauri 11

 

[Akalifauj]

2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Oh please. You basically want to pontificate and talk about stuff without using anything of any substance to support your views 

I know you don't consider the Gurus lives had substance or their teaching holds no substance.  Such an arrogant person.  

[Sukhvirk1976]

2 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Well, then.

You seem to think that the way of marriage of every Sikh before the advent of dating is, as you put it, "interesting".

You seem to have put the entire thrust of your argument on whether I saw my wife before marriage or not. (By the way, Guru Nanak ji did not, just in case you think they were weird, too.) 

And also, I think you're problem is not with me, but rather with Bhai Gurdas ji and Guru Sahib and their faithful Sikhs who don't go bar-crawling for sexual partners.

Anyway, let me ask: 

1) according to you, does the Sikh philosophy of treating women only stand if I didn't see my wife before marriage?

2) or does it still stand if certain Sikhs (like during the time of the 10 Gurus) didn't date.

3) and if #1 or #2 are accepted, then will you accept the Gurmat view of treating women?

If you won't accept #3, then why even ask?

Bro you seem to be missing the point.. Let me be clear.. You seem to have a very narrow view of what 'dating' means. Dating doesn't necessarily mean a exploitative relationship.. Two individuals can meet each other with a view to see whether they are not compatible or not.. That may happen on a single date or over a number of times. 

A date doesn't mean they engage in sexual relations but even if it did, whilst not ideal it doesn't mean that they have done anything wrong.. 

The reason I asked you the question which you avoided to answer was to illuminate the contradiction of your point.. 

Moreover you have no idea whether or not all living guru sahibs had or had not met their prospective spouses before marriage since we unfortunately don't have the documented evidence.. Before we go ahead and condemn or form such strong opinions we should at least try and understand what we can conclusively say 

[Sukhvirk1976]

7 minutes ago, BhForce said:

No problem, I welcome spirited debate, including getting into the nitty-gritty, but then you also have to be prepared for questioning in return.

ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆ ਚੰਗੀਆ ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾਂ ਧੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੈ।

Vaar 29, Pauri 11

 

I have no problem with that but it says nothing about dating.. 

If we believe bani to be 'Sat' which I do. Then truth has to be without contradiction.. Ie. We cannot expand upon it or draw conclusions from it that do not fit. 

If a unmarried sikh was to follow the above statement they would never get married and then become brahmachari.. So the context of it must or can only be applied in circumstances such as one who is already married or their is a deeper meaning. Truth is incontrovertible and bani is sat so if we as readers of bani come up with assumptions that are flawed doesn't mean bani is flawed it means our understanding is flawed 

[Sukhvirk1976]

16 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

I know you don't consider the Gurus lives had substance or their teaching holds no substance.  Such an arrogant person.  

Bro let's just stick to facts and engage our brains. I do ahankar, and my khoj as directed by Guru sahib is part of the process to eliminate it.. You can put words in my mouth all you like.. 

The fact that you see your opinions as aligned with guru sahibs only demonstrates your own ego.. You repeatedly claim to speak for them and like all people who have a lot to say but nothing of substance to back it up when challenged you hide behind a false piety..