Jump to content
AjeetSinghPunjabi

How can we educate sikhs who go to hindu mandirs ? ... How about using reverse psychology ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kira said:

OP is clearly referring to sikhs who WORSHIP there. I also challenged the the fact that you claimed OP was taking quotes out of context. Which he was not.

without learning Gurmukhi? That's not studying, that's toe dipping. If you want the truth behind anything go to the source. You need to start fresh my friend.

I think your being obtuse. He clearly positions the argument to suggest Sikhs should be like Muslims and Christians and not visit the churches of others 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I think your being obtuse. He clearly positions the argument to suggest Sikhs should be like Muslims and Christians and not visit the churches of others 

I think you need to learn to read the whole thread (or even the first page) before throwing that accusation around.

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

 

Quote

When you have contact with CEO , would you butter a manager ? nopes. when our guru showed us the path to true parbrahm waheguru , then why do we go to the hindu devi devte who're mere creations of waheguru ji .

clearing referring to performing idol worship. He then further reiterates this.

Quote

How foolish of a sikh to go and worship idol of someone who herself has taken a refuge in the feet of the lord ? How can such sikhs even justify it ?

I don't think I'm being obtuse, I'm outright sure that you just jumped in here and started virtue signalling because you couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread properly. If you had you would have realised OP said nothing wrong.

 

Further more, in this context the proper use of grammar indicates the deployment of You're not Your.

Edited by Kira
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

@Sukhvirk1976

 

This might help when you'e ready to develop your language skills a but more. 

 

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/14814-learning-to-read-write-gurmukhipanjabi-tips-on-getting-started/

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh! I know this isn't really related to the topic at hand, but do you know a tool which allows people to type Gurmukhi fomt from their phone or computer? I saw there was a video posted in the link you showed, but I can't seem to play that video. Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kira said:

I think you need to learn to read the whole thread (or even the first page) before throwing that accusation around.

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

 

clearing referring to performing idol worship. He then further reiterates this.

I don't think I'm being obtuse, I'm outright sure that you just jumped in here and started virtue signalling because you couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread properly. If you had you would have realised OP said nothing wrong.

 

Further more, in this context the proper use of grammar indicates the deployment of You're not Your.

This simply isn't true.  in his first post he doesn't refer to in his 'book' as you put it say visiting is fine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This simply isn't true.  in his first post he doesn't refer to in his 'book' as you put it say visiting is fine 

I quite literally dissected his post for you, showing you how it was an attack on idolatry being done,  I used basic reading comprehension acquired from the most basic English level, if you're honestly too dim to see or understand that then its not really my issue. Then I linked a comment where he agreed with someone who said that. What more would you like? I'm sure OP can easily come on here and profess it, if it'll stop you whining about it. 

If you bothered reading ahead and used your noggin then you'd see that as well, If the initial post flew over your head the ones below where he AGREED with another poster who put those exact words there should be enough. I linked it, read it and weep. 

 

Here it is again if you missed it.

 

 

Edited by Kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

This is what you wrote..

So using that as a starting point Please show me where in the original post he says "visiting is fine.. 

Original post!

This what you wrote and challenged me on.  so please show me where  from the very first post that was made please show me where this distinction was made. That he says visiting is OK. 

I look forward to your response to demonstrate this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This is what you wrote..

So using that as a starting point Please show me where in the original post he says "visiting is fine.. 

Original post!

This what you wrote and challenged me on.  so please show me where  from the very first post that was made please show me where this distinction was made. That he says visiting is OK. 

I look forward to your response to demonstrate this 

I think you need spectacles, do you notice the words "first page" there. That's in references to first page of the thread, to which I linked a comment where he agreed with it. OP= Original Poster in this, so let me further simply that sentence and add in a bit more words for the more dim-witted.

 

On the first page of the thread the Original Poster said visiting was fine in his books, to prove this I linked a comment where he agreed with the statement. 

 

You asked for the distinction and I gave you a fully dissected post from it, honestly it isn't my fault you're hellbent on trying to have the moral high ground here. He made distinctions within his post, a child could see that. Yet Mr "30 years as a Sikh scholar" seems to have trouble understanding the most basic linguistics behind it. 

Share this post


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

I quite literally dissected his post for you, showing you how it was an attack on idolatry being done,  I used basic reading comprehension acquired from the most basic English level, if you're honestly too dim to see or understand that then its not really my issue. Then I linked a comment where he agreed with someone who said that. What more would you like? I'm sure OP can easily come on here and profess it, if it'll stop you whining about it. 

If you bothered reading ahead and used your noggin then you'd see that as well, If the initial post flew over your head the ones below where he AGREED with another poster who put those exact words there should be enough. I linked it, read it and weep. 

 

Here it is again if you missed it.

 

 

BTW the op could come on here and clear things up about what there opinion was. Which is why I don't understand why you are getting so worked up. 

I replied to the original post, backed up my thinking with a rational.. Which has not been challenged.. All that has happened is a faux rage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sukhvirk1976 said:

BTW the op could come on here and clear things up about what there opinion was. Which is why I don't understand why you are getting so worked up. 

I replied to the original post, backed up my thinking with a rational.. Which has not been challenged.. All that has happened is a faux rage. 

I'm hardly getting worked up, he made it abundantly clear. The only one hellbent on saying he didn't is you. You tried to assert he was misquoting Gurbani out of context, which he wasn't. I pointed that out and you still can't be arsed answering around that. 

also in this context the word used should be their not there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

I think you need spectacles, do you notice the words "first page" there. That's in references to first page of the thread, to which I linked a comment where he agreed with it. OP= Original Poster in this, so let me further simply that sentence and add in a bit more words for the more dim-witted.

 

On the first page of the thread the Original Poster said visiting was fine in his books, to prove this I linked a comment where he agreed with the statement. 

 

You asked for the distinction and I gave you a fully dissected post from it, honestly it isn't my fault you're hellbent on trying to have the moral high ground here. He made distinctions within his post, a child could see that. Yet Mr "30 years as a Sikh scholar" seems to have trouble understanding the most basic linguistics behind it. 

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

I'm hardly getting worked up, he made it abundantly clear. The only one hellbent on saying he didn't is you. You tried to assert he was misquoting Gurbani out of context, which he wasn't. I pointed that out and you still can't be arsed answering around that. 

also in this context the word used should be their not there. 

 

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

I did examine the language, that was a subtle dig at him as he was deploying Gurbani. In the exact right context as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

So btw can you show me where on the first page of the thread he says it's OK? 

I've just gone through it very quickly and can't find anything to support your interpretation 

Please show me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In urdu we also use 'Mauze' so i doubt if it is hindi word.It sounds like a persian one.Indians have problem prouncing words which end with sound 'z'.Just like Mumtaz Mehal became Mumtaj Mehal and now just Taj Mehal.
    • i have no issue using persian,hindi,english words in my day to day conversations in punjab.I just though a good opportunity to learn "shuddh" punjabi. 
    • Sikhism needs neither a reformation nor a philosophy of free will. Reformations are for religions that are at a primitive tribal level in the first place. Sikhi starts off with Guru Nanak Ji feeding people langar, and preaching meditation of Satnam. If you start off with capturing war booty and sex slaves killing all the males, yeah, you need a reformation. Philosophy is (mostly) for people trying desperately to understand the universe without real divine knowledge. These types of efforts are called ਸਿਆਣਪਾਂ in Gurbani. (You did you Japji this morning, right?) All of these sianapan don't amount to a hill of beans. We don't have the burning need for philosophy that Westerners do because we can obtain complete knowledge via simran. ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੈ ਸਿਮਰਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੁਝੈ ॥
    • it's my fault, i should have phrased things a bit better. Basically based on the data he gathered same sex couples are more likely to settle into a routine and are less likely to do things out of said routine (such as cheating, which according to the data he gathered was surprisingly low compared to straight couples). By similar attributes I mean people like them in terms of personality and taste. In straight couples you can usually note a sort of polarity in the way they behave and their personalities.  Again this is based on one study, nothing official or on a large scale really.
×