BhForce

Why would he feel the need to highlight this as an issue? What did he say in his lengthy post?

You mean as in being raised and trained in Punjab? But the answer would not be a random Sikh born in the West, right? I mean, not having full training in Guru Granth Sahib ji. Just being able to speak English and then spouting off your own opinions is not useful.

Yeah. Like the Dalai Lama, "His Holiness"? I think what you're saying is that what needs to be said in the Gurdwara is what they don't say in the Gurdwara. As for the physical needs, I agree that bodieshave physical needs. But is that something to be addressed from the stage? Stuff like helping young people with their college applications, job search, etc., is something that Sikhs are beginning to do, but Gianis aren't supposed to do that, right?

Yes. One approach might be to use our terminology. I.e., someone asks you if your religion is "monotheistic". Tell him we believe in the philosophy of Ik Ongkar. Then ask him if he believes in Ik Ongkar. Put him on the back foot. Make him defend the notion that God just sits alone and this entire Creation is without any divine spark.

Definitely. That's the idea behind "tisar mazhab" "Ih teesar mazahab Khalsa upjio pardhana" This (Khalsa) is the 3rd religion, produced as presiding. Guru Sahib did not set up Sikhism as a imitation of Hinduism or Islam, rather as a unique thing on its own.

Well, a lot of our people don't even know that God is mixed in with the Creation. They would just as well accept the Abrahamic conception of God. Maybe. What exactly are they going to say about us that they say about each other? We don't have the record that they do. We don't have "rules for slavery" and "having to marry your rapist" as part of the Sikh Rehit Maryada. But, secondly, it would may be better (depending on the audience) to stay on the high philosophical level (Ik Ongkar) that Sikhism is on instead of the mire of the Abrahamic foodfight.

Perhaps. Sure. Although Gurbani affirms in multiple places the concept of "Sahib mera eko ha eko hai bhai eko hai", I don't think that we need to justify fitting our religion into the box of "monotheism" created by some theology professor. Sikhism is what Guru Sahib created it as. Attempting to fit it into some Western framework would lead to lopping off some corners to wedge it in. Agreed. Some of our people would start sweating if someone were to tell them that Sikhism is not a monotheistic religion. (Whether it is or isn't is not the point. The point is that we are so wedded to pleasing the dominant forces in Western society.)

No. "Animism is the religious belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence." - Wikipedia Missionaries believe that there is no spiritual essence because there are no spirits.

Which Sikh boy is that, exactly?

Note that the missionaries are teaching #2 (God=universe). I.e., that there is no actual separate God. There's just the universe. And you can call him God, god, or whatever. But it's all just physical matter. There's no entity out there to listen to your Ardaas. There's no soul, either. No aatma, no Parmatmaa. Just atoms.

Did you make this image? It's a very good 5-second way to introduce people to Guru ji's teachings.

Do you have a link? I should refrain from commenting until I read it, but is it possible that the missionaries are a direct consequence of the British? That all the stuff they are saying is just to please the British Sahib, who isn't even around anymore?

Right, I agree with that. I.e., the problem is bowing to Muslims. The problem is you said "both", implying (to my mind) you would object to the Pope carrying out his religion in washing the feet of Christians in that tradition. I completely agree that the foot-washing of Muslims was specifically staged to further the Pope's agenda of importing millions of Muslims.

No, you're not. This is amazing the depths that certain unknown entities are going to. Good catch.

Good thought, bro.

Seriously? Anyways check this out:

I agree with the others that he seems to be arrogant in saying that only he knows what Gurbani says, everybody else before him was all wrong. I don't know why he doesn't accept that Jaap Sahib isn't praise of God. How is it not praise?

I don't know where you got this, but it's a jumble of bad stuff, acceptable stuff, and weird stuff. -I don't know what's wrong with not marrying a woman whose antecedents you don't know. -Without going into specific defects, it seems quite obvious that you don't want to marry someone with excessive defects, because the entire point of marriage is to produce healthy children. -Don't be alone with a woman? How is this bad? It's a really bad idea to be alone with a woman who isn't your wife (or your family).

Agreed.

Agreed regarding various ways of interpretation. No, I realize that she straight translated Prof. Sahib Singh. But then she went on to give her thoughts, as you noted on Sikhawareness: So that's what I'm reacting to. Her calling her thoughts "A little deeper." So by extension, I can only surmise that she must think Prof. Sahib Singh's thoughts must be "A little shallower."

OK, thanks. By the way, the Tribune article claims the sale was for 12 crore INR. But this one says it was 4000 GBP. 12 crore INR would be 1,358,872 GBP.

Both. But how can you blame the Pope for following his religion? (Seeing as washing somebody's feet doesn't harm us, unlike, say, jihad.)

Ever been to an Akhand Paath? The whole of Salok M: 9 before the end basically deals with death the fleeting nature of human life.

Well, there is an actual Christian tradition of foot-washing, usually not followed. But do you fault the Pope because he bowed to Muslims or to anyone?

That was not written by Guru Sahib in their bani. It is written in Sikh history.