Jump to content
  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum 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.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Tell him to make an account here. I would like to talk to this pakhandi baba. Sounds like the type who would promote mouth-to-mouth Simran, no offence to him. True. I hope you no longer hold the same opinions about Sikh Sangat as you once did.
    • I dont know his name. He goes by bulandpuri babaji. Hes really big in canada and getting famous in usa. His english isnt bad. And the accent, quite slight, just makes him sound more mystical and spiritual. Im sure hes on youtube.  I dont know much about him. But my favorite kathavachak, bhai sahib singh ji canada wale, follows him so he must be good person. 😄😃😆😅
    • But when someone spreads false parchaar and misrepresents Bani, then thats a serious issue that we as a community need to have a discussion on.    As I said before, I like to get out of my intellectual echo chamber and seek new ideas and diverse people. Ive ended up learning a lot, and its better to have a friendly debate with a friend, rather than get grilled by a person of another religion/dharma in public.   I would prefer we have an intellectually stimulating discussion rather than resorting to such measures...  
    • Bro, not taking p!ss here, but you certainly have some interesting friends. Most people have trouble finding sangat. You say he doesn't follow Singh Sabha but he sounds quite missionary-fied, or like a Dhandrianwala follower. Either way, if that's what he believes, let him, it's his jeevan. Although, he could probs use a talking to from a salotar.
    • Alot of ppl use that 80% rule to prove we are like animals. In that one male has many females. And some males have nothing. Instead of reminding me of animals, it seems to point more to muslims. One man with his harems. And they did bride price, so only rich males can afford wives. So the rest go on slave hunts.  This alpha male and his harem are not the only model found in nature. Some animals mate for life. Some mate then go different ways. Then mate with other partners.  This modern day tendancy to use evolution (meaning how humans were before they were humans ie when they were a non intelligent species) or how animals live there life to live ours  Is very stupid. Paleo ppl with their diet and now ppl looking for solution to marriage and everything else from evolution is dumb. We evolved from there. Meaning changed for the better.  But of course ancient culture should be followed.. and our biology and our natural instincts which women do have different then men. But most ancient cultures exalted monogamy and studies show that children do better in household with both mom and dad. And married couples are happier when elderly. So yes monagamy is better for men and women.  About that 80% statistic. It could be due to war, famine, invading hordes, rape. Also most invading ppl would kill all the men 15 years and older. And keep the women. Cant that explain the 80% rule?  As the invaders were the 20% who  controled 80% of the women. In a famine, more females are born then men. As females can defininately reproduce but men are a risk from natures pov.In war most young men die leaving behind many women. This statistic only had to skew once. Then cant be rectified. So maybe it changed after Mahabharat. Or Fall of Troy? Or black death? As women safer at home men getting sicker? Or maybe in the past each generation, more and more men weeded out due to wars and famine?
×