Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
puzzled

Is man the head of the house?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BhForce said:

1. Man is the head of his home.

2. A wife must defer to him and obey.

3. Children must come below both parents and obey them.

4. But man is subject to God.

5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. 

Difficult to disagree with any of that. But I'd add there are many ineffectual, weak, or downright foolish and ignorant men who have no business heading anything let alone the family unit. May God protect the wives and children of such men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MisterrSingh said:

Difficult to disagree with any of that. But I'd add there are many ineffectual, weak, or downright foolish and ignorant men who have no business heading anything let alone the family unit. May God protect the wives and children of such men. 

Right, that's where #4 and #5 come in.

That there's someone else above the man. This always has to be emphasized. 

Men should understand that if they are being abusive, the woman can go to her father-in-law, other relatives, the community, or the Gurdwara.

(Yeah, I know, ineffectual.)

But still, it should ideally all be part of a system.

Total male control with no escape vale is bad. Feminization is a problem, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Right, that's where #4 and #5 come in.

That there's someone else above the man. This always has to be emphasized. 

Men should understand that if they are being abusive, the woman can go to her father-in-law, other relatives, the community, or the Gurdwara.

(Yeah, I know, ineffectual.)

But still, it should ideally all be part of a system.

Total male control with no escape vale is bad. Feminization is a problem, too.

I wish it was as simple as that. In an ideal world where both parties adhere to some form of honourable conduct even in the most inhospitable of climates, that good-natured exchange makes sense. But we know real life is a lot messier and illogical. Sometimes, good men are implicated in issues not of their making, etc. In a climate where the benefit of the doubt is more often than not awarded to the female voice in order to apparently re-address societal injustices centuries in the making, I don't feel justice and parity are always the winners in these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I wish it was as simple as that. In an ideal world where both parties adhere to some form of honourable conduct even in the most inhospitable of climates, that good-natured exchange makes sense. But we know real life is a lot messier and illogical. Sometimes, good men are implicated in issues not of their making, etc. In a climate where the benefit of the doubt is more often than not awarded to the female voice in order to apparently re-address societal injustices centuries in the making, I don't feel justice and parity are always the winners in these cases.

You're saying it would be one side fighting according to the "rules" and the other subverting them in order to "win"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BhForce said:

1. Man is the head of his home.

2. A wife must defer to him and obey.

3. Children must come below both parents and obey them.

4. But man is subject to God.

5. Therefore he cannot abuse his family. 

i think thats how things had been in our families, but i think things started changing in our parents gen ( people who are in their 40s 50s) in that gen the women started taking over, that gen also did a crap job of passing sikhi down to their kids,  i think that generation is the beginning of the down fall.  that same generation prioritized materialism over sikhi and passed that down to their kids

i could be wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people in their 70s are more god fearing and are less crafty,  something went wrong with the generation after 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BhForce said:

You're saying it would be one side fighting according to the "rules" and the other subverting them in order to "win"?

Sometimes. It genuinely requires a King Solomon-esque approach of adjudging issues on a case-by-case basis. But we all know that isn't always the reality when practiced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
8 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

65665840-fag-end.jpg

What kind of sikh are you ? encouraging people to smoke .

I think ur a <banned word filter activated> on this forum to mislead sikhs.

SHAME SHAME Mister Khan ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
22 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

5000187139765.jpg

Oh, 

so now you're trying to advertise HALAL meat under the guise of so called  haraam PORK on a sikhi site ! 

hence proven you're truly a SULAHH ! 

loose-a**ed faggottt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lolz

you two are hilarious 😁

you need your own thread. 

But on a serious note. Since when was abusing wooftas in search of a better word acceptable on here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

But on a serious note. Since when was abusing wooftas in search of a better word acceptable on here?  

Since he started stalking me.

Plus, don't even bother with the higher moral ground. You haven't got a leg to stand on with your derogatory language aimed at gays. Do you want me to point you in the direction of your own posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Where? 

I've been here for decades. Those people don't really exist. You want to see English people being their true selves just go out on the town on a Friday night. I'm not judging this btw. I'm just saying, that God and spiritual matters are not things most English people are concerned with (remotely). I think they are more concerned with enjoying life as much as they can - while they can. 

Hi

I don't blame you! But we good ones do exist. On Sunday mornings we are at church. We do good for our communities. It is the foolish who are so visible and they let us down. We too despair of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

You've been told repeatedly to stop referring to Guru Granth Sahib as a "book" yet you continue to do so. 

I do apologise. Shall i simply say your scriptures? Your teachings? 

I certainly do not wish to offend you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
49 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

lolz

you two are hilarious 😁

you need your own thread. 

But on a serious note. Since when was abusing wooftas in search of a better word acceptable on here?  

Actually, what is the sikh view on homosexuality? 

The Bible clearly says it is wrong and against God's wishes. Yet these days this is usually ignored. Gayness is celebrated and visible on TV and everywhere as being normal. I do not think so. I believe in God's Word. Yet i cannot and must not judge, God is the judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The Gurus had Degh Sevadars. Overtime this has become enough said for me. 
    • I been reading about how akali phoola singh was a fanatical strict sikh who lead equally fanatical akali nihung warriors who hated non-Sikh presence and interference in Sikh governance and lands captured by them. Such was their readiness, daring recklessness and desire for war against the enemies of Sikhs that they often defeated enemies many times their number and strength. Whereas maharajah ranjit singh was more strategically cunning, less about spreading Sikhi, more diplomatic and pluralistic in his approach in matters of religion and the political affairs of the state. Maharajah ranjit singh made treaties with the british invaders (east india company) in the vain hope that: 1) one day there will be a right time to militarily strike the Sikh princely states under british protectorate and unite the whole of punjab region under his rule  2) if that was not possible then the sutlej border between his government and them would be the permanment border and they will be allies in peace with each other. On the other hand akali phoola singh wanted to attack and wipe out the british presence in northern india. And I believe had he had got his way and the Khalsa army was put in his command then the british would have been wiped out within weeks therefore enabling the expansion of Sikh rule to be unchecked and unmatched meaning afghanistan and iran could have easily come under Sikh rule the ruler of persia at the time admitted as such when hearing of battles lead by general nawla and akali phoola singh. The regional powers of the time afghans, Marathas, mughuls were no match for the Sikhs. I believe it was some idle hesitancy of maharaja ranjit singh in not striking while the iron was hot and rather enjoying the good life without having secured his rule is what lead to the downfall of his legacy, the Sikh empire and overall Sikh sovereignty eventually because the British had always eyes on taking over punjab as they needed it in order to get to afghanistan and counter russian empires expansionist plans.
    • I feel like it is to preserve many of our elders traditions. If we simply stop and tell Nihangs to stop taking shaheedi degh, the tradition will simply die out. Additionally, what is really wrong with bhang? Obviously, we should not abuse it but the whole negative stigma behind it really stems from western influence. There is this really good podcast regarding Sri Dasam Guru Granth Sahib Ji and  Dr. Kamalroop Singh speaks to this point.   
    • Beta-ness is a battle of the mind. It can be transcended if it's been encoded via nurture but it takes a herculean effort from an exceptional individual who has a reason to do so.  Would a bhagat or passive spiritual devotee fall into the category of beta? Or does their spiritual awareness preclude them from such company?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use