commander

So which of these classes does Sikhism belong to? There is no basis provided for this claim. What a rubbish article

I think it is. Please read Japuji Sahib. Specifically, read the second pauri.

For Sikhs, the question has little relevance. How He "created" the universe(s) is unknown to us. It may have took a single instant or billions of years. Since He is beyond time, "evolution" is really meaningless.

For what reason, if I may ask?

It is of no use to answer that question since nobody seems to agree on the definition of a 'Sikh' these days. A better question would be to ask whether a Khalsa should only marry another Khalsa.

I think the responses to the particular post on Sikhnet clear any doubts on whether Sikhism is a 'pantheistic' religion. And keep in mind that this 'Sardar' Jass 'Singh' character is apparently a Christian missionary. His motives and opinions come out quite clear in his posts.

Please apply proper formatting so that the post is at least readable. Thanks!

Did the bibi tell her new fiancée about what had transpired between her and her old fiancée?

Ha ha ha.. that's the spirit! Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal! 8)

Maybe they're just looking for an excuse? :wink:

Because, first there is no need for it - the Guru tells us so. Secondly, maya is everywhere - even in the seemingly devoid "mountains". We just have to accept the fact maya is a part of this world and there is virtually nothing wrong with it in moderation. Finally, even if I did go out there, I would probably starve to death. Can't have that, can we? Sure they can - with the Guru I will say this: There's nothing wrong with falling in "love" with another being - it is natural - so long as the Guru comes first before everyone and everything. In another thread, another Sikh wanted to know the reason for marriage. I think it is a perfect answer here. I think it's quite difficult to totally overcome lust. Infact, it would be harmful to do so since it is needed for natural procreaton. Any logical being would. But you have to have an open mind - I certainly do. The ultimate authority in this matter is the Guru. I look to the Guru to tell me what exactly "love" is. I suggest you do the same. Most things, we can only voice our opinions on (just like we are doing in this thread). The important things, however, are in the Rehit Marayada. I don't think that would solve any problems What about gays? :wink:

Practically speaking, when people fall in "love", they are attracted to the person's personality and physical features. We don't know which characteristics in a person are attributed to the "soul" and which are biological. So, the question is, is it even possible to fall in "love" with someone's "soul"? Also, how do you take reincarnation into account? Are two souls who "love" each other outside of Waheguru's hukam? If the bodies perish and are incarnated into other living beings, their "love" is no more. Like I said earlier, everyone has their own opinions but I simply will NOT equate the Love for (Wahe)Guru as the same as we have for another person. I think they are too, but we apparently don't agree on their purpose for being.

I was unaware of these facts. Thanks for the information.

Gotta let everyone know about this Bad publicity can do wonders in correcting the attitudes of politicians :evil: Maybe we should also start a petition demanding an apology. To think, Sikhs actually raised money for this guy :twisted:

I asked first Anyways, I would rather not be reminded of this wicked lady any more than necessary.

Nice. Do any 3D Models? Would love for you to create a 3D model w/ Textures of a Singh/Warrior (with weapon in hand)

How does this picture fit in "Sikh Picture Posts"?

Perhaps you misread?

Where does the Rehat Maryada say to 'pray' five times a day?

These rules are outlined in the Rehit Marayda. That is how we can say (for example) that a Sikh cannot drink, or commit adultery etc. Will again refer you to the Rehit Marayada. NOTE: Since I don't want to debate the meaning of the word "Sikh", I have assumed that you meant Sikh = Khalsa. If you feel different, feel free to ignore what I have said. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As for me, I do not equate "Love" for things that will perish (mother, father, husband, wife, pet etc.) with Love for (Wahe)Guru (which I consider as the only true kind of Love). I consider the former to be a disguise for attachment (maya).

Nothing wrong with sex :roll: Everyone has a different view of what a marriage should be. Religiously, marriage is a union of two souls with the goal of helping each other reach Parmatma. For Sikhs, marriage is a formal commitment to your partner with the Guru as witness. It's also a nice arrangement to have and raise children After all, as living beings, we have a moral and social duty to procreate

It's quite simple really: if you are a Sikh, then you must be married (via the Anand Karaj) before you engage in any sexual contact. Otherwise, you would be in violation of the Rehit Marayada.

There are actually a lot more than two different styles (though the differences are subtle). My take on the 'styles' is that most of the current ones are only for show (I wear one of these as well). These 'samosa' style pagris are yet another impractical 'gift' of the beloved Punjabi society. Personally, I think we have a lot bigger problems to worry about than pagri styles. Perhaps one day the Khalsa panth will provide guidelines for appropriate type of pagri to tie. The individual should have some choice in what kind of a dastar they wish to tie. I find it quite interesting to see different styles of pagris (except those laced with starch which certain people plop on like a hat - they are unacceptable :evil:). A related question, how is "Damala" spelled in punjabi (I would like to know how to pronounce it)?

Indeed.

People that live in Las Vegas don't gamble - they know better :wink: Gambling's only for the visitors - they help pay our taxes