Inter-Racial Marriage Between Sikh and Christian

[Guest DhanDhan Mata Gujari]

19 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Gurus married within their own dharams and castes.  

Those are lies that the Mughals and their paid Hindu writers have planted into Sikh minds.

The actual reality is that Mata Gujjar Kaur was of a Gujjar background.

And the Sodhi clan was never a Khatri clan so the same-caste theory was a lie planted to divide Sikhs

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/14/2019 at 4:03 PM, dallysingh101 said:

This might be a misconception on your part. There is plenty of evidence in extant rehat-namas that suggest the preference was for Sikhs to marry Sikhs. 

And when you talk of pluralism, you seem to wash away the fact that the panth does have a whole host of demarcations that mark it off as separate from other communities. 

I'm not saying that marriages across dharams never took place, but it's not right to say that it was some sort of free for all in the name of pluralism. That's the reality of it. When they did take place it was usually down to compulsion (unavailability of Sikh brides in say Hazur Sahib) or derived of political machinations or personal whims like some of M. Ranjit Singh's marriages. 

No evidence to suggest otherwise 

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/15/2019 at 1:05 AM, Guest guest said:

you clearly have no idea about the basics of logic.  not trying to be funny, but maybe you should read a book about it?

for example.  there is scant evidence that sikhs are not meant to worship fairies.  Shall we start worshipping faiires?

Just show me the evidence. Otherwise you are just being hyperbolic 

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/15/2019 at 1:00 AM, Guest guest said:

if your ancestors did that, you wouldn't be sikh.  race=culture=history=transmission of religion.  if you dilute it then what?

'Sikhs' choose to marry 'Sikhs'.  e.g. to give a silly example, you're not going to chose to marry a Capitalist if you are a Marxist.

you probably think sikhism is just a slogan.   you have no idea about walking the walk.

You choose to be skin deep 

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/15/2019 at 1:05 AM, Guest guest said:

you clearly have no idea about the basics of logic.  not trying to be funny, but maybe you should read a book about it?

for example.  there is scant evidence that sikhs are not meant to worship fairies.  Shall we start worshipping faiires?

Err. Before giving it the big intellectual challenge maybe you should read up and learn about how logical thinking and critical thought works.. "There is scant evidence that sikhs are not meant to worship fairies." doesn't mean that we should start worshipping fairies. It just means that until you provide evidence that we shouldn't you can't say that we can't.. 

You need to learn about the laws of logic. Gurbani is based on logic. Before you give it the big un at least come correct.. 

Joker lol  

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/14/2019 at 4:03 PM, dallysingh101 said:

This might be a misconception on your part. There is plenty of evidence in extant rehat-namas that suggest the preference was for Sikhs to marry Sikhs. 

And when you talk of pluralism, you seem to wash away the fact that the panth does have a whole host of demarcations that mark it off as separate from other communities. 

I'm not saying that marriages across dharams never took place, but it's not right to say that it was some sort of free for all in the name of pluralism. That's the reality of it. When they did take place it was usually down to compulsion (unavailability of Sikh brides in say Hazur Sahib) or derived of political machinations or personal whims like some of M. Ranjit Singh's marriages. 

Please provide evidence 

[Guest guest]

On 2/6/2019 at 12:40 AM, GuestSingh said:

thats a fair point...

but my post was also about the extremely strong western influences i.e. dating, feminism and even pornography, on apnia which is making their already feral nature even more worse from my pov...

at least in those days, there was less if any worry about diluting the gene pool since our ancestory already contained hindu/muslim blood and our surroundings were made up of same folk whereas now its gonna be diluted and weakened with others from over the world and thats only gonna result in a loss of identity by appearance, a loss of culture by mixed-heritage and a loss of faith by mixed-beliefs.

But given the global conspiracy to dilute the Sikh race what can be done about it in reality?

There are many race traitors and Guru Sahib warned about this in hundreds of stories in Gurbani (Sri Charitropakhiyan)

[Guest Sat]

On 2/1/2019 at 3:54 AM, Guest Guest Amrit said:

I have been in a relationship with a nonsikh man for the past 4 years, but it has been a secret relationship (meaning my parents don't know). For the past two years we have been talking about marriage, but in Indian or Sikh culture I have realized that this is deemed as unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? I don't see any reason other than the fact that I wouldn't be able to pass on the culture or bring my children up as Sikhs, but he has agreed to let me do that because he understands that it is something very important to me. If he's okay with that- then why would it still be unacceptable?

Its not unaaceptable

 

God is One. Bhagat Kabir called God Allah. Other bhagats called him Ram, Christians call him God, Muslims call him Allah, Hindus call him Ram. Its the same God. People are just close minded and use segregation as means to feed the demon of ego. 

[Akalifauj]

5 minutes ago, Guest Sat said:

Its not unaaceptable

 

God is One. Bhagat Kabir called God Allah. Other bhagats called him Ram, Christians call him God, Muslims call him Allah, Hindus call him Ram. Its the same God. People are just close minded and use segregation as means to feed the demon of ego. 

Do you have any evidence to say interfaith marriages are allowed by Gurbani?  Your emotional post means nothing other than you hold strong beliefs against Gurbani that is read out during the lavan.  In the first pauris of the lavan Guru Sahib clearly says drop your previous religion and join to the Gurus teachings.  Bhagat kabir ji says in Gurbani that he is not a Muslim.  If people use segregation as means to feed the demon of ego, then why did Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji start a new religion called Sikhi?  This is another way to segregate people.  According to you Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji was in ego.  If you want to date a white chick because she is hot.  That's on you and own up to it.  Sikhi doesn't approve of your views, but be man enough to say I hold this view and I don't need approval from Sikhi.  Or are you going to claim you are a brahmgyani and saw how spiritually lifted the hot white girl was, so you decided to marry her.  She must have been wearing less clothing the first day you laid eyes on her face and body so you were able to see her spirit that day.  

[Sukhvirk1976]

On 2/14/2019 at 4:03 PM, dallysingh101 said:

This might be a misconception on your part. There is plenty of evidence in extant rehat-namas that suggest the preference was for Sikhs to marry Sikhs. 

And when you talk of pluralism, you seem to wash away the fact that the panth does have a whole host of demarcations that mark it off as separate from other communities. 

I'm not saying that marriages across dharams never took place, but it's not right to say that it was some sort of free for all in the name of pluralism. That's the reality of it. When they did take place it was usually down to compulsion (unavailability of Sikh brides in say Hazur Sahib) or derived of political machinations or personal whims like some of M. Ranjit Singh's marriages. 

No one suggested free for all. 

Your assertion does require some qualification though, first of all a definition of sikh is required, then evidence of said rehat namas. 

You may very well be right and I broadly agree I just don't think the evidence stacks up for it to be conclusive