BhForce

I agree that Sikhism is 100% true. But that does not mean the other paths are 100% false. That's what the Abrahamics believe (that other religions are totally false). I don't really think there's any point to debating them, unless they want to attack us, in which case we can respond. But as for discussion (as opposed to debate), I think the reason we don't do that is 1) we don't have good English-speaking spokesmen who are also fully knowledgeable about Gurbani and 2) we don't have the courage to discuss such matters with non-Sikhs because we don't have our story straight. I.e., what's our belief on X? Or Y? Or Z? I think we have a soft underbelly which Christian missionaries will exploit.

Well, I was also extremely upset with him before. But he has calmed down a bit and posts some reasonably OK questions or statements.

Well, but I'm not claiming there is free will or not. I'm just saying that according to Gurbani, you can't understand the question of free will just by talking about it. Only when God grants you understanding can you understand it.

That's not true. Someone (I think maybe a journalist) who was accompanying Gill bought some pothis and the young sevadar on duty wrapped the pothis in a rumalla. If you put in around your neck, it's a siropa. On pothis, it's rumalla.

Well, what did he say? Exactly.

Why did you post this? This was white British, doesn't have to do with the subject matter of this forum, unless you would have posted why it matters.

No problem, bro, I have agreed and disagreed with just about every person (oops, there's that word again!) on this forum. Including you. By the way, why don't you just go to the trouble of creating an account? They are free. You don't have to enter your credit card number. It facilitates discussion. Sorry to say, it's hard to see how your use of blasphemous metaphors can be but anything but a demonstration of your estimation of the weakness of your arguments. You know full well I have not waved a kirpan or any other weapon around, other than my mere words. Your fear is merely of words, not a deadly weapon. Do explain like I'm 5, Jawan. Well, let's just stick to this one question: What is a baby? And what is a fetus? Do the words have fixed meanings? Or are they merely meaningless sounds? If the latter, no further discussion is warranted. Just because you think there's a difference between a fetus and a baby that allows the killing of the former, go ahead and define the terms in whatever way that you think makes sense, and we can go from there.

No, bro, what's that?

ਇਕਿ ਆਪੇ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇਅਨੁ ਇਕਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਲਾਇਅਨੁ ॥ Some, He causes to wander in the wilderness, while others are committed to His devotional worship. ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਸੋ ਬੁਝਸੀ ਆਪੇ ਨਾਇ ਲਾਈਅਨੁ ॥ He alone understands, whom the Lord causes to understand; He Himself attaches mortals to His Name. The 2nd line means that you cannot understand the concept of free will merely through Internet discussion boards. Only God can make you understand.

Great point, had not considered that. Sure, if we injure someone, we should look after him. But KA seems to think that if some random person/army injures someone else, then we are responsible.

Some lines that show how Sikhs should view other Sikhs/women/sisters/friends (hint--don't be catty): ਆਵਹੁ ਭੈਣੇ ਗਲਿ ਮਿਲਹ ਅੰਕਿ ਸਹੇਲੜੀਆਹ ॥ Come, my dear sisters and spiritual companions; hug me close in your embrace. ਮਿਲਿ ਕੈ ਕਰਹ ਕਹਾਣੀਆ ਸੰਮ੍ਰਥ ਕੰਤ ਕੀਆਹ ॥ Let's join together, and tell stories of our All-powerful Husband Lord. ਆਵਹੁ ਭੈਣੇ ਤੁਸੀ ਮਿਲਹੁ ਪਿਆਰੀਆ ॥ Come, dear sisters-let us join together. ਜੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਮੁ ਦਸੇ ਤਿਸ ਕੈ ਹਉ ਵਾਰੀਆ ॥ I am a sacrifice to the one who tells me of my Beloved. ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸਖੀ ਸਹੇਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਮੋ ਕਉ ਦੇਵਹੁ ਦਾਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਜੀਵਾਇਆ ॥ O Gurmukhs O my female friends and companions give me the gift of the Lord's Name, the life of my very life. ਹਮ ਹੋਵਹ ਲਾਲੇ ਗੋਲੇ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾ ਕੇ ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ ॥੧॥ I am the slave, the servant of the Guru's Sikhs, who meditate on the Lord God, the Primal Being, night and day. ||1|| ਮੇਰੈ ਮਨਿ ਤਨਿ ਬਿਰਹੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਪਗ ਲਾਇਆ ॥ Within my mind and body, I have enshrined love for the feet of the Guru's Sikhs. ਮੇਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਸਖਾ ਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਸਿਖ ਭਾਈ ਮੋ ਕਉ ਕਰਹੁ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਮਿਲਾਇਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ O my life-mates, O Sikhs of the Guru, O Siblings of Destiny, instruct me in the Teachings, that I might merge in the Lord's Merger. ||1||Pause|| ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਮੇਰੀ ਭੈਨਾ ॥ As Gurmukh, listen to the Naam, the Name of the Lord, O my sisters. ਏਕੋ ਰਵਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਘਟ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਮੁਖਿ ਬੋਲਹੁ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਬੈਨਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The One Lord is pervading and permeating deep within the heart; with your mouth, recite the Ambrosial Hymns of the Guru. ||1||Pause||

I agree with this. True that such trips and excursions are merely worldly, but let's face it, the parents who aren't doing things with their kids aren't doing paath 24x7. They're just sitting on the sofa boozing.

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect In other words, some people are not self-aware.

OK, thanks for answering honestly, at least that you spend your grocery money on your kids. What people opposing Ravi Singh are saying is that he should do this on a large-scale basis (spend Panth's money on Panth's kids). Just to clarify: You're saying that the 25 million Sikhs should spend their money trying to take care of 7 billion non-Sikhs? So every Sikh has to support 280 non-Sikhs. That's a pretty tall order.

Who cares about poor Sikhs? It would be a burden on a billion Muslims to donate $1 apiece to put together $1 billion for Rohingyas. Priorities, man.

Just a question (do answer honestly): When you go to the store to buy groceries, do you buy them for your wife and kids, or do you distribute your $100 grocery purchase among 99 or so people you might run into along the way with $1 left for your kids? Or do you spend $99 on your family, and $1 on others?

Which is why we all should meet and talk with people that we disagree with.

How could they possibly get there illegally? Pakistanis get there illegally because the countries in the way (Iran, Turkey, etc.) are Muslim. How could a Sikh get there? You certainly cannot just walk across the India-Pakistan border.

What? Granted that this very tuk doesn't provide that context (of women treating other women). But why do you need a separate tuk for that? Just treat them normally (not as a sexual partner, of course). Like a friend or sister.

Exactly. Thanks for your answer, by the way. You wouldn't date your sister (and neither should anyone else). And we're told to treat women other than your wife as sisters. Therefore, you wouldn't date anyone that you're not married to.

That's not exactly what @GuestSingh was talking about, mere skin color. He's talking more about heritage and culture. That a lot of white people (not all) are just looking for "the next new thing". And when they get tired of it, they'll either make your daughter's life hell, or divorce her. And he doesn't want that.

He was summoned to the Akal Takhat, and he asked for forgiveness.

"Start each morning by singing in homage to a racist paedophile in a foreign language" And here I thought that our resident Islamophile had turned a corner and woken up to oppose Muslims across the globe singing the praises of Mohammed every day in a language (Arabic) they don't understand.

It's one thing for me or other experienced posters on this website to write "Please back up that assertion". I did that very thing when I asked someone to post where it says the soul enters a baby at 3 months of gestation. Of course, there is no such line. It's very different for you, who doesn't even read Gurbani, to arrogantly ask "Please back up that assertion". It would be fine for you to humbly ask, but not to imply that the assertion is unfounded. Anyways, see here: Secondly: Tell me whether you would date your sister. Yes or no.

Really? This has been discussed a number of times. People in favor of interfaith marriages were simply unable to answer basic questions. You bring this question up again only so it seems to new readers that you have a point to make. The fact is, if you and your fiancee don't believe in any religion, get married, who cares? But if you believe in one set of principles or rules or maryada or schedules for prayer, food, ethics, etc., how are you going to have a married life? And what do you teach the kids? So, it's blindingly obvious that two people who are of different religions can't get married. But two people of different religions who don't follow them can get married.