Reader

Funny as you guys do nothing more than cry about everything else. How many Shaheed Missionaries exist btw? Traditional schools like Taksal, Dal, Nirmala, Sevapanthi all have a long history of shaheedi, where is yours? Your best friend Dhadriwala crapped himself and peed when someone attacked him. Meanwhile Taksalis like Sant Jarnail Singh Ji faced bullets face-first defending Harmandhir Sahib.

So I guess you don't keep your kesh then too? don't wear kakars or take amrit? lemme guess, you don't do nagar Kirtan and the 5 Pyare never happened too. Bhai Gurdas Ji was a contemporary of Guru Ji, his varan are parvan. You can find the originals in the reference library, this verse also exists in them. Cut the nonsense, you idiots like to take out what you don't like. That's the sad truth of you missionaries, you love to edit history and simply change it because it flies over your head. 
Why can't the Gurus perform miracles? There's miracles mentioned happening in Gurbani, Bhagat Kabir Ji recounts how his chains broke when the brahmins threw him in the water and he ended up floating, a dead cow came back to life for Bhagat Namdev Ji, I could go on but it's pretty apparent you and your new best buddy Dhadriawala will simply stick to a more athiestic approach. Gurbani says SHOWING miracles to get ahead in the world is wrong, using them for personal gain is wrong BUT should the need arise to protect and uphold Dharama then yes it is parvan. 
There;s the key phrase there, Guru Ji flat out said if he did it to hold people in awe, to gain influence then its pointless.  
No benefit? of course you wouldn't see one. Someone that pulls tukhs out and changes them on a whim couldn't hopeless understand what God is capable of. So please tell me how the universe came into being, according to science God isn't needed. Did God just magic it up? According to science there is no such thing as a divine being, who are you connecting to? 
Because unlike the other folks doing them Guru Ji told his sikhs to hide them away and only use them in Hukam. 
This is what I love about you moronic missionaries. You're tearing through scriptures and poking holes in your own stupid logic. If Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the benchmark then you guys are also going to get rid of amrit, get rid of kesh rehit, get rid of everything. As NONE of that is mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. What do you guys exactly like? other than your own huge egos? you hate every historical text/Teeka out there so where is your history from? 
The original manuscripts of Bhai Gurdas Ji's varan and Swaiye exist, you can even access them all this is in there but you guys want to take it out because you hate it all. They exist and these come directly from them. So no there's not corrupt, what you idiots are doing is calling Bhai Gurdas Ji a liar now because you can't understand the varan and Gurbani themselves.
 
I have a question for you, this should be simple enough and should tell you who you'll believe. 
Lets say Gurbani tells you the world is flat, but you observe that the world is round. So whom do you side with? One answer here, Gurbani or your own insight. No clever remarks, if you try that approach I'll conclude that that you're simply not a sikh as u have no faith in bani.
 

Because like your new best friend, you call everything Brahmvaad. Read the vaar, and tell me if Bhai Gurdas Ji is lying. 
Vaar number 1, Shabad 36. This is really truly something, you're crying about tat Gurmat yet you've not even touched these varan. Shocking.

Yeah it is in his Varan, and its important. You seem to cry Brahmvaad at everything so I asked you if you think Bhai Gurdas Ji was wrong to write this, keeping in mind he had access to Baba Buddha Ji who would have heard all this from Bhai Mardana Ji anyways. Is this Brahmvaad as well then?
 
I'm still waiting for you to provide the historical source for the missionary sakhi you keep bringing up about Guru Harkrishan Ji.
Please find the poll that you conducted and do present it here.
Are you actually this dense? the idiot doesn't even know the difference between "mary Christmas" and "Merry Christmas", for an idiot that claims to read Gurbani he can't even get biblical knowledge down despite the fact its mentioned in Gurbani as well. What a great scholar.
 
I had no idea you were some sort of fortune teller. 

Your God decided to save Lot and his family, the same Lot who offered his own daughters to be gangraped by his fellow citizens and the same daughters who then fornicated with their father because they couldn't find a man. I wouldn't throw stones while standing in a glass house my friend, I can go on and on about how the God of the bible constantly says he's merciful but then decides to destroy everyone because he's enraged or upset over something, or how he goes about saving a pious soul who ends up doing some pretty dark shit, example as above. I'm glad you're using the King James bible though, the one that was altered about 400 years ago, just like the bible all through history, maybe churn out your original manuscripts before attacking others . I see you seem to use "XDDDDDDDDDDD" all the time, I'll take this as an indication you're either a really young child or an overgrown manchild, so take this from here. Using a wiki source is both stupid and inaccurate, if you want to learn about Sikhism (and its pretty apparent you don't as you see this as a dong measuring contest and want to prove your faith is superior) then go and watch basics of Sikhi videos on youtube. They will (as the name suggests) give you the basics. 
 
Maybe rather than asking us if The Sikh God is evil, you should ask why your God is doing exactly as you describe above. God is letting Satan run rampant, he's letting all those kids die, It seems your God favours people like Lot and his family over everyone else, So God seems to favour incestuous offspring and their father who'd sooner offer his won daughters as fodder for a mob than defend his own ideals, he chooses all that over a poor starving African who's done nothing wrong (according to your gospel). 

Your God decided to save Lot and his family, the same Lot who offered his own daughters to be gangraped by his fellow citizens and the same daughters who then fornicated with their father because they couldn't find a man. I wouldn't throw stones while standing in a glass house my friend, I can go on and on about how the God of the bible constantly says he's merciful but then decides to destroy everyone because he's enraged or upset over something, or how he goes about saving a pious soul who ends up doing some pretty dark shit, example as above. I'm glad you're using the King James bible though, the one that was altered about 400 years ago, just like the bible all through history, maybe churn out your original manuscripts before attacking others . I see you seem to use "XDDDDDDDDDDD" all the time, I'll take this as an indication you're either a really young child or an overgrown manchild, so take this from here. Using a wiki source is both stupid and inaccurate, if you want to learn about Sikhism (and its pretty apparent you don't as you see this as a dong measuring contest and want to prove your faith is superior) then go and watch basics of Sikhi videos on youtube. They will (as the name suggests) give you the basics. 
 
Maybe rather than asking us if The Sikh God is evil, you should ask why your God is doing exactly as you describe above. God is letting Satan run rampant, he's letting all those kids die, It seems your God favours people like Lot and his family over everyone else, So God seems to favour incestuous offspring and their father who'd sooner offer his won daughters as fodder for a mob than defend his own ideals, he chooses all that over a poor starving African who's done nothing wrong (according to your gospel). 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Because most people cant be arsed with your usual drivel. You keep harping on about science but its apparent you're about as good at science as Ranjit Singh is at controlling his bowels.
We say Sciences is limited to the material and Gurbani transcends all that. You wanted proof and we gave you loads from Gurbani about miracles happening but apparently since science says no, you'll just say Gurbani is false.
We've asked 10 times now, FIND 1 SOURCE pre-1800, anything that says all the things you do. You claim to have core sikhi down so show us. 
Nice, so you cherry picked stuff to prove your point. Did you forget Gurbani also says that God is antarjami (all knowing) that's not possible as a universal consciousness is unscientific as atoms aren't life. Guru Ji also says God gives his Bhagats whatever they want, He's benevolent. The God you keep going on about is impersonal and doesn't care one way or another as Nature is impersonal and thus unable to be benevolent at all, survival of anything else is unimportant to it as it has no sense of self.
The God of Guru Nanak Dev Ji has personal and impersonal guns, so stop ignoring one for the other because it deletes your entire premise.
I've read Stephen Hawking's work, he explicitly points out that God for him=universe. The universe created itself, it doesn't need a creator. Gurbani says that God created this universe and countless others i.e it wasn't self creating. 
shocking, as you hate Hindus yet the Vedas contain EVERYTHING that Spinoza talks about. But "muh hindus bad bad" right?
Before I dissect this "article" (I wouldn't even call it this as its nonsense written by someone with no grasp of either science or basic Gurmat) Congraulations on posting something from Ranjit Singh's own page  you claimed here you don't follow him but you seem to link his crap left, right and centre. I got to ask, has you initiated you into his jatha with mouth to mouth simran? or have you guys gone a bit further?  I just hope he managed to teach you to control your bowels better than he can.
Someone should pick up a physics book once in a while. Everything at the core might be the same, but on larger scales they can be completely different, just like Brahman can expand into infinite beings and each of them are wearing different guises (thus "different") but at the core are the same. Properties change depending on what you adapt
I almost choked on my taco over this. What a load of nonsense, and the fact that you buy into it really makes me chuckle. You want to talk about laws of nature that's fine. So tell me why Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't sit down and write down all these theories then and there, He could have. You're gonna say "oh cuz the superficial masses wouldn't accept him etc etc" but here's the little snag in your stupid logic. That form of thought was already prevalent in India, that Nature=God=Laws of Nature, it had many forms, namely Ājīvika and Charvaka. Read them, they pretty much say what you're saying. Reincarnation is wrong etc etc.
What more crap, let's take some of these "laws" as you guys call them.  Morality falls into this, these laws have no right or wrong yet Gurmat always does. By your logic it would be ok to force yourself on a women if it was for the progression of the species? By your own logic, yes. What law in the universe says that God (or as you dudes say "nature") laughs and takes a saroop to give darshan to Bhagat Naamdev Ji. What law says that a cow that's been dead for ages comes back to life and God himself gives Darshan to Bhagat NaamDev Ji, what law of science says that Man can float on water without aid like Bhagat Kabir Ji (all these are some of the countless examples in Gurbani). Science is restricted but God isn't bound by it, he can make and break them as he wishes.
No one says that, Science is the most plausible explanation of a certain event, its an uncertainty (that's the very definition of the scientific principle). Gurbani is absolute, For a  Sikh Gurbani will always be above science, not on the same level.
no it isn't. That goes against the very definition of what religion is. 
In that exact text Guru Gobind Singh Ji has a conversation with Waheguru, so tell me how an unfathomable God who's inaccessible is talking to him. 

Your version of Sikhi doesn't have a single shred of historical proof. You've demanded proof from others so please provide your proof, where are the records saying your sikhi=true sikhi. Do they even exist?
You call everyone Pujaris who doesn't agree with you. If Sikhi follows the way you and your husband Dhandriwala are going, we'll have cowards who wet themselves at the first sign of conflict and run, like your husband did. 

You said early on if Gurbani said something Science didn't agree with, you'd side with science. You already made it clear you run everything through science, so science will always be superior to you than Gurbani. 

I didn't twist you, you answered it..
I'm not asking you as an educated person, I'm asking you as a Sikh. A true sikh would believe in Gurbani 100%, Gurbani says this. Yet you choose to side with science and are willing to even let the notion that Gurbani is wrong creep into your mind. 
 
IF Gurbani said the world is flat, you would side with science by your own admission. Yet as Gurbani says,a Sikh would trust his Guru over anything else. 
Mythical sakhis? I posted ones that Guru Ji himself narrates in Gurbani. You still don't beleive it. Bhai Gurdas Ji's varan (the original copies are still with us) are corrupt according to you guys, you don't Suraj Prakash Granth, Panth Prakash, Bhai Mani Singh Ji's Janamsakhis, what do you guys like? other than your own arrogant stuff you conjure from thin air. You guys will bring down any historical Gurudwara with even a remote sakhi about a miracle because you start whining and complaining about "how could it have happened". You changed from Gurbani is Poetry to Gurbani is science on a whim. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Funny because you guys have turned Sikhism into science with a divine hand. You've yet to refute any of the videos which show the Vedas and the Quran also make the same claims you do, Why are they wrong but you're right. The science world laughs at people like you, everyone does. 
You guys don't even believe in a next world, so why are you butthurt over it. You want scientific proof for everything so find me the science on how a divine hand brought forth the universe.

So Sant Jarnail Singh Ji was an RSS agent? Jesus Christ. You really are stupid.
 
So I'm guessing you're the "wise man" you answered for. Well thank you, because you've subsequently shown you're more loyal to science than Gurbani. You'll turn against Gurbani if it contradicts science, thank you for showing everyone on this forum you're nothing more than a humanist rather than a sikh. Gurbani mentions multiple times how the only way to live is to have 100% faith in Guru Ji (Gurbani) yet you can't even muster that if sciences finds something Gurbani says is wrong. Thank you for showing everyone here that you'll put sciences are your Guru and not Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Firstly you started this, you started talking about how miracles were "unnatural" and how they contradict nature. Then when that route failed as Gurbani said multiple times that miracles do occur, you started going on about 1 rehit maryada, where is that rehit marayda from? find me the historical document it comes from. Find me a historical source that says the sikh panth was always meant to have 1 maryada. 
The same people who promote your rehit also said Homosexuality is unnatural, so tell me stupid one. Why is something unnatural occurring all over nature? do you go up to your gay friends and says "hey guys, you're unnatural" You love to toot science but the people who made the rehit had about as much scientific gyan as Dhandriwala has courage when confronted with bullets, which is next to nothing.
I think you don't understand it, given the drivel you posted next.
bullshit, crack open a basic biology book. Evolution is totally random. Technically evolution starts from single cell organisms as that's when they're technically alive, before that they're just atoms and compounds, which aren't alive. 
So they weren't life, they don't fall into the scientific definition of life at all. They weren't single cell organism, by this logic evolution of man started when the big bang originally happened. Life begins from single cell organisms, before that, they're not considered life. According to science therefore, Life begins then. Not before, as before its nothing more than chemical reactions happening.
You mean like how every single christian and muslim makes the same claims about science. You guys and them are just hilarious, one minute gurbani is poetry, the next minute its about evolution. Pick one and stick to it. 
Let's see how muslims say the same thing.
Notice how everyone says the same things, yet no one can prove it? Why should your word be better than theirs. Look how Lord Krishna describes the theory of relativity to Lord Brahma! clearly he was a true scientist through and through.

This isn't dumb, the reason you think its dumb is because you're mind is closed. You want to talk logic but you refuse to actually engage in a logical debate. 
I'm not asking what a wise man will do. I'm asking what you'll say oh Great Wife of Dhandriwala, So am I to take you'll side with science over Gurbani?
I answered them, the reason you can't swallow it is simple. You read the first tukh and started dancing like a monkey, if you read ahead you'd realise its critisizing those who use their powers to wow the world, Gain influence and following.  You started the debate about Rehit. So I carried it on. 
Where am I nervous, I openly showed you where the Shabad's meaning is. You called Bhai Gurdas Ji's varan as corrupted, you're the one implying the scribe of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's first saroop is a liar, not me. You wanted evidence and I pointed it out, the sakhi is in every single sikh historical source out there, the original varan are also present in the reference library, we have them in their first form and they exist there. The only person getting nervous is you, you've openly insulted a Gursikh who was a contemporary of Guru Ji. That alone speaks volumes of your own arrogance.
contradiction after contradiction from you. The Khalsa rehit as you just admitted isn't from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji so it must be rejected. There's no tukh that tells sikhs to keep kesh or take amrit, as you've just shown. The bolded alone shows that, if being Sikh is all about the internal more than external then Rehit wouldn't be important at all as Internal is all one needs. Guru Ji would never have told sikhs to keep Kesh then. BY this stupid logic then Kesh isn't important at all, infact its possible to be a fully fledged Brahmgyani without keeping Kesh or rehit as you're so putting it
Here Guru Ji even criticises those who keep long hair.
ਮੂੰਡੁ ਮੁਡਾਇ ਜਟਾ ਸਿਖ ਬਾਧੀ ਮੋਨਿ ਰਹੈ ਅਭਿਮਾਨਾ ॥ 
 
more crap from Dhadariwala's wife I see. There's instructions to Sikhs in there, about what to do. How to live. The whole crap about "universal" message will only work so far, but the fact remains it tells Sikhs how to live (Gur ka Sikh jo akavaye), yet Kesh isn't mentioned there. You're arguing that its so Hindus and Muslims dont get their feelings hurt? what an absolutely stupid notion. Hindus worship Devs yet the Devs are criticised, muslims bow to mecca and that is criticised. Yet suddenly when Guru Ji was gonna put down rehit for Sikhs he didn't because what? He didn;t want to alienate the muslims and the hindus? after criticising so many of their rituals and beliefs?
 
Also please show me the historical text telling Sikhs to keep Kesh and follow rehit then. 
More nonsense. You'll cry here about how Hindus don't do veechar of their shabads and just bash their heads on mandir floors. Vaishnatives read the Gita and then bow to idols of Lord Sri Krishna, by your logic that is also not idol worship. a Shivaite that worships a shivling and reads the Shiv Purana isn't doing idol worship. Like it or not but you're digging yourself into a hole, you can't say that if you don't have the feelings then it's idol worship or the veechar. If you're doing Veechar of Shabad then you'll find God in you, no need to do Metha Tekh to anything. That's the missionary view on this. 
You don't even believe that everything happens in Akaal Purkh's hukam so what can I say about  your Buddhi? Sidh Ghost is a part of my nitnem, im more familiar with it than you are, the opening Pauris of Japji Sahib seem to be a mystery to you as Guru Ji flat out says that "ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ". Trust me., the fact that you'll tear into Bhai Gurdas Ji's varan and call him a liar is a sign you have no respect for Ucha Gursikhs like him and think you're sarb gyani on Gurmat.
No but you have all the time in the world to argue and call Bhai Gurdas Ji a liar. 
 
Anyways back to my thought experiment. I don't want any "a wise man would do this" or "muh science" nonsense. Cut the crap and get to the point. If Gurbani said the world is flat but science said the world is round, who are YOU going to side with? Your answer will tell the entire sangat what kind of "sikh" you are.

@chatanga1
ਅਪਨੇ ਭਗਤ ਪਰਿ ਕੀ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਲ ॥ ਗਰੁੜ ਚੜ੍ਹ੍ਹੇ ਆਏ ਗੋਪਾਲ ॥੧੬॥ ਕਹਹਿ ਤ ਧਰਣਿ ਇਕੋਡੀ ਕਰਉ ॥ ਕਹਹਿ ਤ ਲੇ ਕਰਿ ਊਪਰਿ ਧਰਉ ॥੧੭॥ ਕਹਹਿ ਤ ਮੁਈ ਗਊ ਦੇਉ ਜੀਆਇ ॥ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਈ ਦੇਖੈ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥੧੮॥ ਨਾਮਾ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਸੇਲ ਮਸੇਲ ॥ ਗਊ ਦੁਹਾਈ ਬਛਰਾ ਮੇਲਿ ॥੧੯॥ ਦੂਧਹਿ ਦੁਹਿ ਜਬ ਮਟੁਕੀ ਭਰੀ ॥ ਲੇ ਬਾਦਿਸਾਹ ਕੇ ਆਗੇ ਧਰੀ ॥੨੦॥ 
 
Isn't it ironic. This entire Sakhi of a deadcow being Brought to life by Nirankar Ji for Bhagat Naamdev Ji is within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Dhandriawala's wife is clearly the king in this 

Funny as you guys do nothing more than cry about everything else. How many Shaheed Missionaries exist btw? Traditional schools like Taksal, Dal, Nirmala, Sevapanthi all have a long history of shaheedi, where is yours? Your best friend Dhadriwala crapped himself and peed when someone attacked him. Meanwhile Taksalis like Sant Jarnail Singh Ji faced bullets face-first defending Harmandhir Sahib.

Yeah it is in his Varan, and its important. You seem to cry Brahmvaad at everything so I asked you if you think Bhai Gurdas Ji was wrong to write this, keeping in mind he had access to Baba Buddha Ji who would have heard all this from Bhai Mardana Ji anyways. Is this Brahmvaad as well then?
 
I'm still waiting for you to provide the historical source for the missionary sakhi you keep bringing up about Guru Harkrishan Ji.
Please find the poll that you conducted and do present it here.
Are you actually this dense? the idiot doesn't even know the difference between "mary Christmas" and "Merry Christmas", for an idiot that claims to read Gurbani he can't even get biblical knowledge down despite the fact its mentioned in Gurbani as well. What a great scholar.
 
I had no idea you were some sort of fortune teller. 

Because like your new best friend, you call everything Brahmvaad. Read the vaar, and tell me if Bhai Gurdas Ji is lying. 
Vaar number 1, Shabad 36. This is really truly something, you're crying about tat Gurmat yet you've not even touched these varan. Shocking.

just answer his question. Why do you avoid these questions with constant attacks at others. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question. 
Bhai Gurdas Ji said that Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited other worlds and disappeared infront of an entire congregation. Would you agree with Bhai Sahib Ji? 

None of them were made the Mother of the Khalsa, that alone is a huge honour. You are deminishing her contribution, in-fact you outright said that the other Bibis did more for the panth than Mata Ji did. Don't retract now.
The physical hukamnamas that are present, you can view them online.
Wow, it's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Firstly it's Mata Sahib Devan JI  not Mata Sahib Devan. Funny how you call for respect but seem to refuse to give any.
And his forefather was Raja Dasrath, and so on and so forth. Why stop at Lord Rama? 
I'm gonna quote something you wrote later on, because it seems you want to place Lord Rama in the same Category as Guru Ji. The below quote from you should pretty much answer your own question
So basically Valmiki Ji (writing down the words of Lord Rama) put forth common sense, and suddenly because Guru Ji said the same he's the Spiritual Son but when it comes to the Mool Mantar "oh everyone can agree on that" . Read Dasam Granth Sahib for once, Guru Ji flat out says that the Chaubis Avtar were unable to comprehend God, While Satguru Ji is Pooran Waheguru Saroop, of course Guru Ji knew the mystery of Waheguru Ji. Lord Rama clearly didn't.
On the other side of the spectrum people like you want to place him next to Guru Sahiban when that was something just as detrimental. I know now you'll start to paste quotes from Adi Guru Darbar and try your usual convoluted method to try and make Lord Rama the same as Guru Ji and so on and so forth.
 I would love to see your Teeka, Bhagat Singh, student of Bhagat Singh, member of Bhagat Singh Jatha founded on Sikhawareness. Maya mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a reference only to the material, in that sense yes you're right but what you're doing is taking a take, slicing it, taking one piece and saying to everyone "look here its the whole cake". Adi Shakti is beyond that. Maya is restricted to the 3 gunas (Rajas, Tamas, Satav) as a power, that's all it can work with, while Adi Shakti is beyond even that. 
Maya mentioned in Adi Guru Darbar is different from Maya mentioned as material etc. Also if you're going to quote Gurbani have the common decency to get it right.  It's not "Mahakal hai pita apara"; it's ਸਰਬ ਕਾਲ ਹੈ ਪਿਤਾ ਅਪਾਰਾ ॥ and its not "Devi Kalika maat hamara" it's  ਦੇਬਿ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਮਾਤ ਹਮਾਰਾ ॥
Funny because according to everyone else the Mool Mantar is the defining verse regarding Sikh Philosophy, So much so that many people say that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an explanation of the Mool Mantar. 
Again that's your opinion. You need to stop presenting your stuff as facts.
Yes it does. When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mentioned, if their banis are within it then they are honoured too. 
 
I think all you're doing is nitpicking, looking for things to argue about and just trying to be argumentative. I'm not sure if its an ego thing or it's because you're bored but why does it annoy you that some Sikhs want to Honour Mata Ji?
 
 
I think the user @samurai2 is right, you seem to have a nasty habit of acting like you're a sarb gyani while everyone else knows nothing. 

You should write a whole Teeka then, its apparent no-one else has yet to read it as intently as you. 
No Bhagauti isn't Maya, If you ever venture out and look at the Arths done by proper Gurmukh Vidhants, you'd know its a reference to Akaal Purkh's Primordial Power (or a Sri Sahib), that power creates maya etc but it isn't maya entirely. 
Have you ever read any of Mata Ji history? She lead the panth after Guru Pita left for Sachkhand, she was issuing Hukamnamas for the panth, There's books about her Ithihaas too, Mata Ji did alot of seva for the panth. Dear Lord dude. What a nice thing to say about your mother. 
 
None of them were given the status of Mother of the Khalsa, That is a huge huge deal. 
They are mentioned in Shaheed Singh and other Gursikhs lines of the Ardaas.
Well you might, since its apparent you have selective reading glasses on most of the time. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's physical saroop (family) is descended from Raghu Vansh, Lord Ram falls into the same family but no he isn't the father of Guru Ji.
He'd fall under those that helped the Panth too but that's subjective depending on who you ask.
The Mool Mantar is what encompasses Sikh Philosophy. Taking a verse and then spinning it to your usual narratives doesn't make it so.  You seem to bring the same verses out again and again to promote the same nonsense. Krishna Ji wasn't a Puran Saroop of Akaal Purkh, There has only been one and that was in the form of Satguru Nanak Dev Ji. If you ever bother reading Dasam Granth Sahib (and given your above comment it's clear you haven't) you'd know this. That verse that you pasted here, its again a reference to Nirgun Parmeshwar, NOT Krishna the avtar of Lord Vishnu.
 
Your entire post is just use blowing your usual hot air and trying to come across as a self proclaimed "baba", no offence but OP here is discussing the Mother of the Khalsa, not the anyone else. All respect is due to the likes of Mata Nanaki Ji and Mai Bhago Ji but none of them were made the mother of the Khalsa and the Panth itself.  That as a status is huge considering Guru Ji treasured the Khalsa above anything else, so much so he wrote an entire ustat about it. This is about the Mother of the Khalsa. 
 

None of them were made the Mother of the Khalsa, that alone is a huge honour. You are deminishing her contribution, in-fact you outright said that the other Bibis did more for the panth than Mata Ji did. Don't retract now.
The physical hukamnamas that are present, you can view them online.
Wow, it's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Firstly it's Mata Sahib Devan JI  not Mata Sahib Devan. Funny how you call for respect but seem to refuse to give any.
And his forefather was Raja Dasrath, and so on and so forth. Why stop at Lord Rama? 
I'm gonna quote something you wrote later on, because it seems you want to place Lord Rama in the same Category as Guru Ji. The below quote from you should pretty much answer your own question
So basically Valmiki Ji (writing down the words of Lord Rama) put forth common sense, and suddenly because Guru Ji said the same he's the Spiritual Son but when it comes to the Mool Mantar "oh everyone can agree on that" . Read Dasam Granth Sahib for once, Guru Ji flat out says that the Chaubis Avtar were unable to comprehend God, While Satguru Ji is Pooran Waheguru Saroop, of course Guru Ji knew the mystery of Waheguru Ji. Lord Rama clearly didn't.
On the other side of the spectrum people like you want to place him next to Guru Sahiban when that was something just as detrimental. I know now you'll start to paste quotes from Adi Guru Darbar and try your usual convoluted method to try and make Lord Rama the same as Guru Ji and so on and so forth.
 I would love to see your Teeka, Bhagat Singh, student of Bhagat Singh, member of Bhagat Singh Jatha founded on Sikhawareness. Maya mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a reference only to the material, in that sense yes you're right but what you're doing is taking a take, slicing it, taking one piece and saying to everyone "look here its the whole cake". Adi Shakti is beyond that. Maya is restricted to the 3 gunas (Rajas, Tamas, Satav) as a power, that's all it can work with, while Adi Shakti is beyond even that. 
Maya mentioned in Adi Guru Darbar is different from Maya mentioned as material etc. Also if you're going to quote Gurbani have the common decency to get it right.  It's not "Mahakal hai pita apara"; it's ਸਰਬ ਕਾਲ ਹੈ ਪਿਤਾ ਅਪਾਰਾ ॥ and its not "Devi Kalika maat hamara" it's  ਦੇਬਿ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਮਾਤ ਹਮਾਰਾ ॥
Funny because according to everyone else the Mool Mantar is the defining verse regarding Sikh Philosophy, So much so that many people say that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an explanation of the Mool Mantar. 
Again that's your opinion. You need to stop presenting your stuff as facts.
Yes it does. When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mentioned, if their banis are within it then they are honoured too. 
 
I think all you're doing is nitpicking, looking for things to argue about and just trying to be argumentative. I'm not sure if its an ego thing or it's because you're bored but why does it annoy you that some Sikhs want to Honour Mata Ji?
 
 
I think the user @samurai2 is right, you seem to have a nasty habit of acting like you're a sarb gyani while everyone else knows nothing.