Jump to content
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Amritdharis marrying hair-cut spouses - <banned word filter activated> Jagmeet Singh ?

Recommended Posts

Lol. We have ten pages about Jagmeet's engagement. Meanwhile this fudhu wants to take your Kirpans.  Barely a word. 

Bikram+Lamba.bmp

Also a prominent community figure.  Dude gives me a bad vibe. That's on me, but.....

Priorities anyone?

That smug look creeps me out. Just sayin. 

Historically what would be the fate of someone trying to take your kirpans?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Lol. We have ten pages about Jagmeet's engagement. Meanwhile this fudhu wants to take your Kirpans.  Barely a word. 

Bikram+Lamba.bmp

Also a prominent community figure.  Dude gives me a bad vibe. That's on me, but.....

Priorities anyone?

That smug look creeps me out. Just sayin. 

Historically what would be the fate of someone trying to take your kirpans?

why is it every anti-sikh git  somehow a prominent sikh 'leader' ...his beard is trimmed like a muslaman  he speaks like a brahmin  and where is his 'prominence' generated from his own ego or GOI sponsorship

They tried removing and telling sikhs in Italy that le we have made a non-lethal kirpan for you ....it literally folds up on contact

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

needless to say the Italians told the govt and police , no thanks

whereas I am not sure what the Canadians have done to deal with this ish-stirrer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 9:19 PM, TheeTurbanator said:

Are you even going to try to rebut anything he said? Because you just got counter striked pretty hard. 

Counter striked.. Bro lay off the xbox 

 

On 09/02/2018 at 11:35 PM, jkvlondon said:

clearly you don't  know the reciprocal love Guru ji has for his sikhs also :

"Khalsa mero roop hai khaas, Khaalse meh hau karau nivaas
Khalsa is my form special, In Khalsa I live

Khalsa mero mukh hai angaa, Khaalse ke haun sad sad sangaa
Khalsa is my body, With Khalsa Im ever ever present

Khalsa mero mitar sakhaaee, Khalsa maat pita sukhdaaee
Khalsa my friend companion, khalsa mother father peacegiver

Khalsa mero dharam our karam, khalsa mero bhed nij maram”
Khalsa my faith and actions, Khalsa my distinct personal mystique

Khalsa mero bhavan bhandaara, Khaalse kar mero satkaara
khalsa my treasure vast, Khalsa keeps my honour

Khalsa mero satgur poora, Khalsa mero sajjan soora
Khalsa my satguru complete, Khalsa my virtous noble friend, brave dauntless warrior

Khalsa akal purakh ki fauj, pragteo khalsa paramatam ki mauj.
Khalsa army of God, the Akal Purakh, Khalsa joy of the Supreme Being."
x.gif
 
Given this high status Guru ji gives the Khalsa , that the actions of the Khalsa reflect on the Honour of the Guru ... Jagmeet's actions tarnish the Khalsa image through his selfish usage of Guru jji's image and his lack of discipline in terms of trying to marry a patit as she has comitted bujjar kurehit ... He could remedy the situation but I doubt the will is there  as it will impact their relationship...
 

Seriously! How and what right do you have to label her patit! 

 

On 10/02/2018 at 1:51 AM, N30S1NGH said:

one who has entered and realized the sphere of atma(self), he alone is worthy of the title of the khalsa, he becomes one with me the guru and ultimately God.There is no difference.

I think you have answered the question yourself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2018 at 1:15 PM, ipledgeblue said:

If you do the dating does it matter who you do it with? Dating and grihast Jeevan is mostly incompatible. The girlfriend boyfriend partnership delays people from partaking in grihast, there is no ceremony for this type of partnership such as ceremony of Anand Karaj. It also encourages ex partners whereas before our community looked badly at someone who had been divorced.

Again I think your phraseology rebuts your own statement. Mostly means that it is not necessarily incompatible.. Don't even need to go to the next level of the proposition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 11:35 PM, jkvlondon said:

clearly you don't  know the reciprocal love Guru ji has for his sikhs also :

"Khalsa mero roop hai khaas, Khaalse meh hau karau nivaas
Khalsa is my form special, In Khalsa I live

Khalsa mero mukh hai angaa, Khaalse ke haun sad sad sangaa
Khalsa is my body, With Khalsa Im ever ever present

Khalsa mero mitar sakhaaee, Khalsa maat pita sukhdaaee
Khalsa my friend companion, khalsa mother father peacegiver

Khalsa mero dharam our karam, khalsa mero bhed nij maram”
Khalsa my faith and actions, Khalsa my distinct personal mystique

Khalsa mero bhavan bhandaara, Khaalse kar mero satkaara
khalsa my treasure vast, Khalsa keeps my honour

Khalsa mero satgur poora, Khalsa mero sajjan soora
Khalsa my satguru complete, Khalsa my virtous noble friend, brave dauntless warrior

Khalsa akal purakh ki fauj, pragteo khalsa paramatam ki mauj.
Khalsa army of God, the Akal Purakh, Khalsa joy of the Supreme Being."
x.gif
 
Given this high status Guru ji gives the Khalsa , that the actions of the Khalsa reflect on the Honour of the Guru ... Jagmeet's actions tarnish the Khalsa image through his selfish usage of Guru jji's image and his lack of discipline in terms of trying to marry a patit as she has comitted bujjar kurehit ... He could remedy the situation but I doubt the will is there  as it will impact their relationship...
 

Please don't tell me I no love for khalsa.. If my love was as fickle as to misrepresent the 'khalsa' and make aspersions such as you have done I would be very worried.. 

You clearly have all the answers and have nothing more to learn from bani and guru ji. You have all the answers. You must be a real vidwaan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 10:47 AM, BhForce said:

what are you trying to say? That it prohibits

1. zealous advocacy of Sikhi

2. (non-zealous) advocacy of Sikhi

3. zealous support of Sikhi

4. (non-zealous) support of Sikhi

So even supporting Sikhi is not allowed by Sikhi? That's nuts. Is support of Islam allowed by Sikhi? I'd be willing to guess that in your mind, support of Islam is OK, but support of Sikhi is not.

Is advocacy of Sikhi OK? So somebody comes up to you (or whoever) and trashes Sikhi, trashes the Gurus. You can't reply because somebody told you advocacy of Sikhi is banned by Sikhi? Absolutely bonkers!

You seem to be very confused, so let me help you out.. But let me first just humbly suggest that you think out a proposition before just going for it.. Since in your very own post you are contradicting the overall assertion 

You ask me question and presented 4 options to choose from. But you then make a number of suppositions.. A sikh defends the truth. A true sikh doesn't need to trash other opinions or points of view but neither needs to evangelise. When guru gobind singh ji wrote zafarnama he told aurangzeb that he wasn't a true Muslim because his actions were not those of Islam. He did not say aurangzeb you are because you are Muslim neither did he say I am better than you because I am sikh. Truth is truth one doesn't need force someone to believe it.. It should be self evident to the individual.. When guru teg bahadur ji gave his life, he did it not to support brahmanism which he obviously rejected for its inequality but taught us that each and every one of us have the right to believe what we want.. And that it can only be through our actions that we can show how powerful truth is.. 

Guru Granth Sahib ji has writings made up many bhagats writing in many languages.. Gurbani sangeet celebrates the plurality.. Muslim rababis used to sing in darbar sahib and in anandpur sahib amongst many other places.. 

Guru gobind singh ji told us to defend the truth to defend our right to have our truth but never to feel the need to impress it upon others.. Else we would become no different than those oppressors who we were speaking against! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Seriously! How and what right do you have to label her patit! 

Just wondering, what do you think constitutes being patit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Just wondering, what do you think constitutes being patit?

Since you applied the term maybe you should also be brave enough to define it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Again I think your phraseology rebuts your own statement. Mostly means that it is not necessarily incompatible.. Don't even need to go to the next level of the proposition 

in this context, what I mean by mostly is that a minority of girlfriend-boyfriend couples are living a family life with children without a marital ceremony.

But the aim of dating is not to get married or grihast, but instead to have a casual partnership. That is what dating is in modern times, it is a partnership that has become a corrupted form of marriage.

Share this post


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

in this context, what I mean by mostly is that a minority of girlfriend-boyfriend couples are living a family life with children without a marital ceremony.

But the aim of dating is not to get married or grihast, but instead to have a casual partnership. That is what dating is in modern times, it is a partnership that has become a corrupted form of marriage.

That's cleared it up then... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2018 at 3:25 AM, GurjantGnostic said:

I just thought of something....are they married yet?

What if she takes amrit at the wedding or before.

Might people be jumping on Jagmeet Singh Ji early?

 

she's been going out with him 5 years , plenty of time to adjust by not plucking , waxing etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:
16 hours ago, BhForce said:

Just wondering, what do you think constitutes being patit?

Since you applied the term maybe you should also be brave enough to define it! 

Just to recap, I did not apply the term. @jkvlondon did in this post here. You should know that because you replied here thus:

22 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Seriously! How and what right do you have to label her patit! 

It seems obvious that you think the word patit has some meaning, and you know what it is, otherwise, why would you have responded?

If "patit" were nothing more than a minor abuse, like "nincompoop", would you have replied "How and what right do you have to label her a nincompoop"?

Anyway, if you think "patit" has no meaning, why did you bother to reply?

The reason I asked you what you think "patit" means is because you were so offended at the word's use. I wanted to clarify why you were offended, and part of that is to ask what you think the word means.

If you have no earthly clue as to what "patit" means, then how or why are you offended at its use?

 

Share this post


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

Just to recap, I did not apply the term. @jkvlondon did in this post here. You should know that because you replied here thus:

It seems obvious that you think the word patit has some meaning, and you know what it is, otherwise, why would you have responded?

If "patit" were nothing more than a minor abuse, like "nincompoop", would you have replied "How and what right do you have to label her a nincompoop"?

Anyway, if you think "patit" has no meaning, why did you bother to reply?

The reason I asked you what you think "patit" means is because you were so offended at the word's use. I wanted to clarify why you were offended, and part of that is to ask what you think the word means.

If you have no earthly clue as to what "patit" means, then how or why are you offended at its use?

 

Firstly let me apologise and accept that you did not apply the term but rather @jkvlondon did. My bad.

Humbly accept my apologies. 

Now of course I think the word has some meaning.. Else as you said why would I have objected to it and more specifically objected to the use of it so callously.. My objection I thought was self evident.. 

My best translation of the word in to English would be 'apostate'. Again I thought that was a common translation. 

Why my interpretation matters is of little value since I am not the one using such pejorative terms.. I would ask why @jkvlondon has felt qualified to apply such a term.. I find it fascinating that you would want to pull me up rather than temper or advise @jkvlondon to use such inflammatory language. Unless you think it is not that offensive.. Do you not think it is offensive to apply that term without due process? 

 

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

    • I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him.  And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law. On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry. But: If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.
    • well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..
    • hobson's choice , if you have a preselected array who have blessing from on high by centre there is NO choice only eyewash ....even Kejriwal showed his true colours when he didn't oppose the transfer of Jaggi to Tihar Jail
    • Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ.  He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.  Example 1:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
        Example 2:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013
      ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
      Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.   Context:  Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms.    The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged.    Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 
    • Badal out, badnaam in...why do people vote so badly or 
×