If you are married has your view on the opposite gender changed m

[Jassu]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:06 AM, Dsinghd said:

Ghristhi or not all that matters is Brahmgyaan.

In Sikhi both can achieve salvation.

Some great Mahapurakhs were householders.

You guys are not getting the point. Sure you can forego having children and getting married, I guess no one will really judge you but if you cared about Sikhi and increasing the reach of our religion you would get married and have children. You can achieve salvation AND get married. Nowhere does it say people who are unmarried are more likely to be more religious/achieve salvation ? Basically you guys are trying to make an excuse for Dally. The truth is Dally cannot raise a family and cannot attract any woman whatsoever even if he wanted to.

[Jacfsing2]

19 minutes ago, Jassu said:

Nowadays we don't have any strong Sikhs like in the past, everyone are just fuddhu bande. You think these people care, no, they don't. They just write rants on the Internet.

Wdym. If we have more children who are Sikhs and we try our best to raise them with Sikh values then of course that is better, at least one-two of them will be proper Sikhs.

Nowadays Sikhs aren't that different from non-Sikh counterparts. If I randomly selected a Punjabi Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, the only thing that might distinct the Sikh is Kesh. 

[GurjantGnostic]

14 minutes ago, Jassu said:

You guys are not getting the point. Sure you can forego having children and getting married, I guess no one will really judge you but if you cared about Sikhi and increasing the reach of our religion you would get married and have children. You can achieve salvation AND get married. Nowhere does it say people who are unmarried are more likely to be more religious/achieve salvation ? Basically you guys are trying to make an excuse for Dally. The truth is Dally cannot raise a family and cannot attract any woman whatsoever even if he wanted to.

Jassu. You need to learn first talk second.  If you're worried about Sikhi, first become a Sikh, then have babies. Mind your own business. 

Don't talk on stuff beyond your realm of fakebook and makeup. 

[Jassu]

6 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Nowadays Sikhs aren't that different from non-Sikh counterparts. If I randomly selected a Punjabi Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, the only thing that might distinct the Sikh is Kesh. 

Even if the person is not a proper Sikh it doesn't even matter, they should have as many children as possible because later on their children might come to embrace Sikhi. that's the point.

[GurjantGnostic]

18 minutes ago, Jassu said:

Why do you get so angry when I mention Dally XD Is he your boyfriend.

I'm not talking about @dallysingh101.  What's your obsession with him?

I'm speaking to your disrespect and lack of understanding of Purtan Gursikhi. 

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

1 hour ago, Jassu said:

Nowadays we don't have any strong Sikhs like in the past, everyone are just fuddhu bande. You think these people care, no, they don't. They just write rants on the Internet.

Wdym. If we have more children who are Sikhs and we try our best to raise them with Sikh values then of course that is better, at least one-two of them will be proper Sikhs.

bibi, if you look at our itihaas, that was never how we flourished nor how we prospered

as long as we were under pressure, we were in chardikala and rising in numbers and dominance 

sikhi didnt grow by there being a couple hundreds or thousands sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh ji having children, we grew as people came into the fold of sikhi seeing what we are about 

its not like we havent produced offspring in last century or so but we havent had a bigger erosion in sikhi principles since the periods of the guru, and we havent had such a loss in our khajana (primarily due to sgpc management on top of the dwindling disinterest of our own people), the past century has been more brutal to us as a people than the mughals

our echos and psyche has been damaged, far worse than any ghallughara from 18th century   

having more kids aloof to sikhi is pointless if we dont have the parchar and resources in place beforehand, unless we want them to inherit the disfragmented sikhi that is dominant right now 

and again, need not worry bout numbers as our numbers have been 96 crore from the beginning and will be for eternity, as it is right now as well, time will bring them out when we are in dire need 

[proactive]

5 hours ago, NaamTiharoJoJape said:

bibi, if you look at our itihaas, that was never how we flourished nor how we prospered

as long as we were under pressure, we were in chardikala and rising in numbers and dominance 

sikhi didnt grow by there being a couple hundreds or thousands sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh ji having children, we grew as people came into the fold of sikhi seeing what we are about 

its not like we havent produced offspring in last century or so but we havent had a bigger erosion in sikhi principles since the periods of the guru, and we havent had such a loss in our khajana (primarily due to sgpc management on top of the dwindling disinterest of our own people), the past century has been more brutal to us as a people than the mughals

our echos and psyche has been damaged, far worse than any ghallughara from 18th century   

having more kids aloof to sikhi is pointless if we dont have the parchar and resources in place beforehand, unless we want them to inherit the disfragmented sikhi that is dominant right now 

and again, need not worry bout numbers as our numbers have been 96 crore from the beginning and will be for eternity, as it is right now as well, time will bring them out when we are in dire need 

This is the  Quality over Quantity BS that we have been happy to lazily espouse while the rest of the world increases around us and our population remains stagnant. Our population only increased when we achieved political power, this is always the main way that religions become dominant. The Christians were small communities around the Roman world for hundreds of years fighting over minor details between each other until Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman empire. The latest research shows that Islam did not create the Arab empire, it was the Arab empire which created Islam in order to have a state religion. Religions increase either by achieving state power or by having a strategy of having more children if they do not have state power. Even before democracy, the religion achieving greater numbers would be able to gain some advantage from the ones in power if not of that religion would out of necessity have to give concession to the religion of the majority of their populace. 

Having lots of children  is not pointless as you say. If you are unable to pass on your religion to four children then you will be unable to pass your religion on to one child.  You make sure that the eldest children that get the most of your time when they are young and they will automatically influence the younger ones. Your views show that you do not have a clue about family dynamics and if your type is the dominant type in the Panth today and hold the same BS views about Quality over Quantity our future is more precarious than I thought it was, 

[GurjantGnostic]

In general we should be having four kids. In general.  It's not an sjw moment to disrespect Brahmcharia. Which is clearly what has transpired here. By a soon to be barren spinster with no Sharda. 

[dallysingh101]

21 hours ago, Jassu said:

Why do you get so angry when I mention Dally XD Is he your boyfriend.

Why are you on my case for? It's like attention seeking.

On the serious: I've said what I feel I need to. Yes, I haven't been 'polite' about it, and I hope it might have shocked some sense into you.

Just be aware and careful, there are hordes of predators out there looking for gullible women (some particularly targeting Sikhs). Don't get caught out or used by one, for your own sake. And if you want to be with a Sikh guy, don't give yourself an unattractive rep beforehand. 

That's exactly what I'd say to any Sikh female in your position.  

Now please leave me the f**k alone. lol

[dallysingh101]

21 hours ago, NaamTiharoJoJape said:

bibi, if you look at our itihaas, that was never how we flourished nor how we prospered

as long as we were under pressure, we were in chardikala and rising in numbers and dominance 

sikhi didnt grow by there being a couple hundreds or thousands sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh ji having children, we grew as people came into the fold of sikhi seeing what we are about 

its not like we havent produced offspring in last century or so but we havent had a bigger erosion in sikhi principles since the periods of the guru, and we havent had such a loss in our khajana (primarily due to sgpc management on top of the dwindling disinterest of our own people), the past century has been more brutal to us as a people than the mughals

our echos and psyche has been damaged, far worse than any ghallughara from 18th century   

having more kids aloof to sikhi is pointless if we dont have the parchar and resources in place beforehand, unless we want them to inherit the disfragmented sikhi that is dominant right now 

and again, need not worry bout numbers as our numbers have been 96 crore from the beginning and will be for eternity, as it is right now as well, time will bring them out when we are in dire need 

Another thing people need to realise is that there were infinitely more conversions in the past too. Okay, part of it might have been down to wanting to be on the side of the current rulers and the side of the most  powerful military around, but what you'll find is when people act bravely, it inspires interest in others and makes some join up to be part of that energy. 

Rattan Singh Bhangu records that hordes of younguns ran away from home to join the Khalsa after they started getting more and more bold and successful.