Are Sikhs responsible before the Sangat?

[CharhdiKala]

13 minutes ago, BhForce said:

You serious bro? Sikh Sangat is all those who believe in Sikhi. 

There are local Sikh sangats, as well, as indicated in the Sikh Rehit Maryada, and as also referenced in Hukumnamas from Guru Sahibs.

So you think you can dismiss an essay in 6 posts (with references) with 2 lines?

What specifically from above do you deny? Did you read it? If you don't want to read it, fine, but don't deny that Sikhs aren't responsible before the Sangat.

It's quite surprising that someone such as you who is posting such good pro-Sikh posts about keeping our Sikh population numbers up and looking out for threats from Muslims can post the above.

If times have moved on, why even bother about Sikh population numbers? Who even cares? Who cares if Sikhism or the Sikh panth lives or dies?

And if this isn't the 18th century anymore, it's certainly not the 16th or 17th century anymore, either, when Guru Granth Sahib ji was written. So why should we even bother with a 16th/17th century writing?

What are you on about, bro?

I am going by what the average Sikh is like. If you are talking about Amritdhari Sikhs who follow everything to a tee then I understand. However do you honestly think the average Sikh will voluntarily go in front of a Sikh Sangat and apologise for what they have done?

I'm just trying to be realistic.

Apologies for offending anyone.

[TheeTurbanator]

3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

bro SIkhi is timeless it is for all time , the rehit is for all time

Gurbani is set in stone and is timeless, the Khalsa Panth is a living organism that constantly evolves.  

 

[MisterrSingh]

The sangat has to be worthy of the title, in my opinion. Having a gaggle of - hitherto undiscovered - adulterers, fraudsters, and practitioners of the dark arts (?) sitting in judgement of someone who's a comparative angel compared to the types of individuals I've mentioned, is laughably poor form. Nobody's going to voluntarily raise their hand and come clean about their own transgressions, but you better believe there's going to be some holier-than-thou finger wagging occurring when the chappal is on the other foot. In theory it's undoubtedly a fine practice, but knowing all we do about our people and human behaviour in general, how is it enforceable in a way that does justice to the obviously good and honourable religious precedent established by our spiritual and religious guides?

[BhForce]

On 3/23/2018 at 12:58 PM, MisterrSingh said:

The sangat has to be worthy of the title, in my opinion. Having a gaggle of - hitherto undiscovered - adulterers, fraudsters, and practitioners of the dark arts (?) sitting in judgement of someone who's a comparative angel compared to the types of individuals I've mentioned, is laughably poor form.

True. But, someone who is in the above categories will not volunteer to be a member of the Panj Piyare. Generally, non-practicing Sikhs know they're doing wrong and do not generally object to those who are living in the Rehit.

Also, generally, Rehitvan Sikhs don't care that non-practicing Sikhs drink alcohol, cut their hair or whatever. It's just that they would object if someone tried to change the fundamentals of Sikhism.

[Jacfsing2]

9 hours ago, BhForce said:

True. But, someone who is in the above categories will not volunteer to be a member of the Panj Piyare. Generally, non-practicing Sikhs know they're doing wrong and do not generally object to those who are living in the Rehit.

Also, generally, Rehitvan Sikhs don't care that non-practicing Sikhs drink alcohol, cut their hair or whatever. It's just that they would object if someone tried to change the fundamentals of Sikhism.

In the past, when someone had to go for Tankhya for non-Bhujer Kurehits, they wouldn't have went specifically at Amrit Sanchars to get punishments and would get punishments from Sangat, (of which Punj Pyare would be selected). Non-Amritdharis still have never been giving punishments for Tankhya to Amritdharis, (which accounts for 80-90% of the sangat).

[Premi5]

On 3/23/2018 at 2:09 PM, BhForce said:

A Catholic woman posted that some Sikh woman started having adulterous relations with the Catholic's husband.

 

I don't think she was Catholic, more likely Hindu or Sikh

 

[Jacfsing2]

On 1/7/2023 at 6:43 AM, Premi5 said:

I don't think she was Catholic, more likely Hindu or Sikh

Adultery is not allowed in any of those religions.