Could Jesus hv reached Sachkhand ?

[shastarSingh]

21 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Yeah bro if there's only one ..well..he ain't in Sachakand. Be lucky to even be manmukhi jeev. 

Prophet of Islam did not call himself God. Krishna called himself God.

Mohammed also made Shirk (trying to become God) as the greatest sin. He also completely rejected idol worship.

[shastarSingh]

Just now, shastarSingh said:

Prophet of Islam did not call himself God. Krishna called himself God.

Mohammed also made Shirk (trying to become God) as the greatest sin. He also completely rejected idol worship.

Beautiful praise of God who gives food to entire creation.

 

[GurjantGnostic]

3 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Prophet of Islam did not call himself God. Krishna called himself God.

Mohammed also made Shirk (trying to become God) as the greatest sin. He also completely rejected idol worship.

All good things. But if I put cyanide in your oj it's not the vitamin c that counts. 

According to black isrealites the purpose of the house of ishmael is to be a scourge, or adversary to the actually righteous people lol. They set our survival and dedication bar. 

[GurjantGnostic]

2 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Beautiful praise of God who gives food to entire creation.

 

Quaran and the way it's recited both sound beautiful. 

[shastarSingh]

4 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Prophet of Islam did not call himself God. Krishna called himself God.

Mohammed also made Shirk (trying to become God) as the greatest sin. He also completely rejected idol worship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)

[GurjantGnostic]

3 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)

Awesome. I neither claim to be God nor molest anyone in any fashion so like...look at me lol. 

And if I hurtle over their bars? Something wrong with their bars. 

[GurjantGnostic]

Also a convenient policy for a people about to kill, rape, murder, destroy, and enslave Krishna's people. 

[GurjantGnostic]

2 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Awesome. I neither claim to be God nor molest anyone in any fashion so like...look at me lol. 

And if I hurtle over their bars? Something wrong with their bars. 

Note. I do molest people verbally when it seems appropriate. 

[shastarSingh]

Dr. Ambedkar exposing krishan and gita

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/essays-on-the-bhagwat-gita-philosophic-defence-of-counter-revolution-krishna-and-his-gita/

[shastarSingh]

13 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Dr. Ambedkar exposing krishan and gita

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/essays-on-the-bhagwat-gita-philosophic-defence-of-counter-revolution-krishna-and-his-gita/

The philosophic defence offered by the Bhagvat Gita of the Kshtriya’s duty to kill is to say the least puerile. To say that killing is no killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of defence of murder. This is one of the doctrines which make some people say that the doctrines make one’s hair stand on their end. If Krishna were to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for murder and pleaded the defence set out by him in the Bhagvat Gita there is not the slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum. Similarly childish is the defence of the Bhagvat Gita of the dogma of chaturvarnya. Krishna defends it on the basis of the Guna theory of the Sankhya. But Krishna does not seem to have realized what a fool he has made of himself. In the chaturvarnya there are four Varnas. But the gunas according to the Sankhyas are only three. How can a system of four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy which does not recognise more than three varnas?

[shastarSingh]

17 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Dr. Ambedkar exposing krishan and gita

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/essays-on-the-bhagwat-gita-philosophic-defence-of-counter-revolution-krishna-and-his-gita/

The philosophic defence offered by the Bhagvat Gita of the Kshtriya’s duty to kill is to say the least puerile. To say that killing is no killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of defence of murder. This is one of the doctrines which make some people say that the doctrines make one’s hair stand on their end. If Krishna were to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for murder and pleaded the defence set out by him in the Bhagvat Gita there is not the slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum. Similarly childish is the defence of the Bhagvat Gita of the dogma of chaturvarnya. Krishna defends it on the basis of the Guna theory of the Sankhya. But Krishna does not seem to have realized what a fool he has made of himself. In the chaturvarnya there are four Varnas. But the gunas according to the Sankhyas are only three. How can a system of four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy which does not recognise more than three varnas?

[paapiman]

4 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

Prophet of Islam did not call himself God. Krishna called himself God.

Mohammed also made Shirk (trying to become God) as the greatest sin. He also completely rejected idol worship.

Sri Krishan jee was more powerful than Hazrat Muhammad saab and Sri Buddha jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

3 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

The philosophic defence offered by the Bhagvat Gita of the Kshtriya’s duty to kill is to say the least puerile. To say that killing is no killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of defence of murder. This is one of the doctrines which make some people say that the doctrines make one’s hair stand on their end. If Krishna were to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for murder and pleaded the defence set out by him in the Bhagvat Gita there is not the slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum. Similarly childish is the defence of the Bhagvat Gita of the dogma of chaturvarnya. Krishna defends it on the basis of the Guna theory of the Sankhya. But Krishna does not seem to have realized what a fool he has made of himself. In the chaturvarnya there are four Varnas. But the gunas according to the Sankhyas are only three. How can a system of four varnas be defended on the basis of a philosophy which does not recognise more than three varnas?

Well, a Sikh Kshatri's duty is also to kill the tyrants/oppressors and protect innocent people.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

4 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

Dr. Ambedkar exposing krishan and gita

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/essays-on-the-bhagwat-gita-philosophic-defence-of-counter-revolution-krishna-and-his-gita/

Gurmat is more close to Sri Krishan jee's teachings than it is to Buddhism.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[shastarSingh]

2 hours ago, paapiman said:

Sri Krishan jee was more powerful than Hazrat Muhammad saab and Sri Buddha jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Dear bro

Whatever power krishan had was not his own power. It was Waheguru's power given to him by Waheguru ji.

Real power is to completely submit before Waheguru and get whatever power one wants from Waheguru.

Krishan had BIG EGO. He boasted of his power. He called himself God. He used deceit and also had sex with many gopis.

Even a relatively manmukhi person will hv lesser ego compared to krishan.

[mahanpaapi]

It is not my place to tell someone what to believe or not and vice versa, and I restate, I try not to believe what my mind tells me, therefore defer my doubts to Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaaj, and follow His Bachans to my best, as He clearly states in this regard All Divine Beings listed in His Bachan are form of One Divine Light, and therefore that is what I believe. I would always make a point to inform sangat at large about His and other real Brahamgyanis take on such critical issues. (and Brahamgyani who essential runs the universe and is inherently fearless and carefree, would not lie and say things to placate someone who Amy get hurt, if one does that then he is a politician). Generally speaking, three largest sampardayas, Nanaksar Kaleran, Gursagar Mastuana, and Karamsar Rarasahib also has the same view as Baba Nand Singh Ji's on all Avtaars listed in His Bachan.

[GurjantGnostic]

4 hours ago, mahanpaapi said:

It is not my place to tell someone what to believe or not and vice versa, and I restate, I try not to believe what my mind tells me, therefore defer my doubts to Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaaj, and follow His Bachans to my best, as He clearly states in this regard All Divine Beings listed in His Bachan are form of One Divine Light, and therefore that is what I believe. I would always make a point to inform sangat at large about His and other real Brahamgyanis take on such critical issues. (and Brahamgyani who essential runs the universe and is inherently fearless and carefree, would not lie and say things to placate someone who Amy get hurt, if one does that then he is a politician). Generally speaking, three largest sampardayas, Nanaksar Kaleran, Gursagar Mastuana, and Karamsar Rarasahib also has the same view as Baba Nand Singh Ji's on all Avtaars listed in His Bachan.

Well bro you're not going to like this at all. Either Babba Ji included mohammad to keep the peace, there are two mohammads, or Babba Ji wasn't exactly on point. But if you're telling me Babba Ji supports pedos, then.. that's a fake Babba. 

End of. And if you put your mind aside on that issue it's just being willfully blind. 

In fact let it me stup it up to be appropriately bold. May Maharaja strike me dead before oosting again if I'm wrong. Anyone who supports mohammed as described is no Babba is in fact a horrible person. 

So either these Babbas are talking about an actual prophet mohammed, not the one who people focus on or they're fake. 

[GurjantGnostic]

4 hours ago, mahanpaapi said:

It is not my place to tell someone what to believe or not and vice versa, and I restate, I try not to believe what my mind tells me, therefore defer my doubts to Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaaj, and follow His Bachans to my best, as He clearly states in this regard All Divine Beings listed in His Bachan are form of One Divine Light, and therefore that is what I believe. I would always make a point to inform sangat at large about His and other real Brahamgyanis take on such critical issues. (and Brahamgyani who essential runs the universe and is inherently fearless and carefree, would not lie and say things to placate someone who Amy get hurt, if one does that then he is a politician). Generally speaking, three largest sampardayas, Nanaksar Kaleran, Gursagar Mastuana, and Karamsar Rarasahib also has the same view as Baba Nand Singh Ji's on all Avtaars listed in His Bachan.

And muslims intimidate your people. Keep that in mind. They aren't allowed not to include mohammed. 

[GurjantGnostic]

Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj actually tells us.  

 

[GurjantGnostic]

So which one is the Prophet they must realize? And which one's are they defending for pedophelia?

[GurjantGnostic]

I think the part of Dasam Granth people struggle with the most is cp. I think that took no energy to put in, was whipped up in a matter of days or minutes, and is in the back for a reason. It's only for those people who need to learn about evil. Anyone else who isn't in the open my eyes before the internet existed phase, shouldn't read it. It should not be read to add to or indulge or celebrate kaam. It should be read sparingly, with purification done before and after, as a way to expand the awareness to defend against the evils described. And it is gross. But so is everything we pay to watch in the media. Its cp on screen. 

Want to throw it out? Have at it. But Dasambani is real and serves it's specific purposes. 

And it just came through for us again. 

[GurjantGnostic]

Just now, GurjantGnostic said:

I think the part of Dasam Granth people struggle with the most is cp. I think that took no energy to put in, was whipped up in a matter of days or minutes, and is in the back for a reason. It's only for those people who need to learn about evil. Anyone else who isn't in the open my eyes before the internet existed phase, shouldn't read it. It should not be read to add to or indulge or celebrate kaam. It should be read sparingly, with purification done before and after, as a way to expand the awareness to defend against the evils described. And it is gross. But so is everything we pay to watch in the media. Its cp on screen. 

Want to throw it out? Have at it. But Dasambani is real and serves it's specific purposes. 

And it just came through for us again. 

And people using it as I've heard, like orgies while reciting it, should get Jhatka. 

[mahanpaapi]

now, after virulent and hatefully attacking Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj, you have crossed the line from which I guess there is no return according to Sri Sukhmani Sahib, and you may want to recite it, over and out! 

[HSD]

I guess if no one wants to talk about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and how it implicates Jesus as a murderer I will just point something else out. 

The christists believe Jesus died but then came back. They also believe he will return to them one day in physical form. 

You lot say he is in Sachkhand. 

So who is right? 

If he is in Sachkhand he cannot return which makes their whole religion false. If they are right about him coming back then he can’t be in Sachkhand. 

So which is it?

[GurjantGnostic]

49 minutes ago, HSD said:

I guess if no one wants to talk about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and how it implicates Jesus as a murderer I will just point something else out. 

The christists believe Jesus died but then came back. They also believe he will return to them one day in physical form. 

You lot say he is in Sachkhand. 

So who is right? 

If he is in Sachkhand he cannot return which makes their whole religion false. If they are right about him coming back then he can’t be in Sachkhand. 

So which is it?

Infancy gospel of thomas does have the story about him withering some kid. Not denying that. Just not sure that determines if he got into Sachakand, or has to come back in order to like you say. 

But one can come and go from Sachakand.