What a wonderful post, bro. I'm quite happy to see that you think this way. If you don't mind, could you answer:
1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did?
2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations?
And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically? Understand that I'm not saying that Gurbani promotes or allows rape. I'm just interested in what he presents to say that Bani bans rape, specifically. The discussion on those tuks would also bring up interesting points which I believe would not be in accord with your friend's thought process.
Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned?
So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam".
Agree with you. This is yet another case where the English "translations" are going to create major problems for us where some people are going to be come "lakeer de fakeer" based on erroneous translations.
"par nari" does not mean "others' wives". It means "a woman not your wife".
If not, Gurbani loses it real import:
The atrocious English translation above says you become impure by perving on another's wife. Question: Do you not get impure by perving on your neighbor's unmarried daughter?
Puratan Singhs understood the term to be "a woman not your wife". Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal:
OK, so according to your friend, you're supposed to call another's wife a "mother" or "daughter". But if she's unmarried, then sky's the limit? That renders the tuk basically meaningless.
The Sikh dharam envisions an atmosphere of purity in regards to relations with women. Your friend's mode of thinking leads to constant sexual desire and tension towards unmarried women, which is exactly what Harvey Weinstein (and many others) were doing towards unmarried actresses in the whole MeToo thing.
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.
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