Jump to content

Just asking, but are there any flaws in the Sikh faith?


Recommended Posts

:?: :?: Please will someone tell me. I am a Sikh myself but i am very curious to know. Are there any flaws in the Sikh religion? Also is there proven evidence? Another thing is are there any proven flaws in other religions? I don't know why i'm asking this but i'm very curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

science and theology can't be compared because there are some things in science that theology condemns and vice versa. it's like trying to use a spanish dictionary (science) in order to understand a german article (religion). it's not gonna happen, which is why science would "prove" religion as flawed and religion would "prove" science as flawed.

has it ever crossed ur mind that both are right in their own context and that there are things that one can't explain because we just don't have the right worldviews to really understand them as cooperative concepts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No..not for me. Just like there no flaws in islam for a muslim, or for buddhists following buddhism.

How can there be any 'flaws' if you are submitting to the dharams teachings (hence the gurus) and using that knowledge as your source of liberation and freedom.

You have to humble yourself before your guru (whichever guru that might be) and listen to what hes telling you. So there cant possibly be any flaws, only flaws in the person!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thx everyone,

but to show an example, the Bible says that the Earth is the center and everything revolves around that. Now science has proven that this is false and that the earth revolves around the sun. Also the Vedas says that the earth is flat and says that has been proven false. The VISHNU PURANA says that sun is 800,000 miles and moon is 2,200,000 miles away from the earth respectively. Astronomy has now proved that the moon is nearer to the earth, i.e. 240,000 miles and that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from the earth. MARKANDEYA PURANA says that the earth has an area of 4,000,000,000 square miles. According to astronomy, it is only 190,700,000 square miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"very imp" hellooo ..... i started reading the msgs from the top .... where someone has made his point that there is no flaws in any religion.... remeber that babaji says "hindu aana turkhu kana dona tahi giani seiyana !!" ...... "buut puj hindu muyea turkh muyea ser nevay !! ooi lai jaray ooi lai gaday teri gat doona na paay!! " by this babaji is proveing that FLAWs are there, there are many points where babaji teaches such things. FlAWS were there thats why guru nanak dev ji made differnet aarti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

has it ever occurred to ppl that perhaps what is written in religious texts is not meant to be taken as nething more than a metaphorical statement? is it possible that by stating that the earth is the centre of the universe, the bible is trying to convey just how special and lucky we are because we're so close to merging with God whereas other world's and their respective civilizations may not be...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tru say sv.

very interesting question... (not sure about the motivation behind it), but it reminds me of a sakhi about guru gobind singh ji.

i read it in a booklet from sikh missionary society... can't seem to find it at the moment, so i can't say what their source is. abbreviated version of the sakhi:

singhs riding along, guru gobind singh ji dismounts & bows down towards a muslim fakirs tomb. the singhs say "wa gwan? u told us never to bow to tombs!" ggsj says "yeah... what u gonna do about it?" then the singhs give ggsj a punishment (a fine i think). ggsj later says he did it to test the singhs & find out if they followed him as a personality or whether they followed dharam.

does this show that ggsj wanted singhs to follow the message instead of the messenger, or was it something more fundamental... and he was demonstrating that we should question everything (even the guru) & not to accept anything as absolute truth. something i've been pondering of late... any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we should question everything (even the guru) & not to accept anything as absolute truth

there is a difference in between sant & a guru..... u may use ur brain for filtering sant's wording, but when u talk abt guru NO ARGUMENTS REMAINS LEFT what may ever he says is not just a real truth infact its a HUKAM. u may question/argue him before making him a guru BUT BUT BUT ones u have said him a guru then no argument left.

it is same like if army commander orders his soldier to shoot his father, soldier will not take another sec to think abt, it he will shoot his father at ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revelations are like russian dolls, with many layers. But science is system of belief too, they make models and hope to describe reality. If the bible says earth is the center, well for us it is, dont we say the sun is rising, yet its the earth that turns. Also we as spiritual beings influence the universe, which is seen in quatum physics, the observer changes the outcome of an experiment. Conciosness is the center of the multiverse in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like your style of thinking truth seeker! it seems spirituality, religion (i use the term loosely), philosophy & to a certain extent psychology are based around consciousness & it's truth/reality/existence. science's downfall is that where science ends, the realm of the mind, thoughts & consciousness begins. also, science is built on the premise of falsifiability... a model is only true so long as it is not disproved through experiment/observation. which i guess goes to show that nothing in science is absolutely true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a difference in between sant & a guru..... u may use ur brain for filtering sant's wording, but when u talk abt guru NO ARGUMENTS REMAINS LEFT what may ever he says is not just a real truth infact its a HUKAM. u may question/argue him before making him a guru BUT BUT BUT ones u have said him a guru then no argument left.

it is same like if army commander orders his soldier to shoot his father, soldier will not take another sec to think abt, it he will shoot his father at ones.

that kinda goes against the message that guru gobind singh ji gave in the sakhi i quoted... but then i can't substantiate the sakhi... has anyone else heard it? does anyone have any references for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why the hell are u looking up my address????? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: ... i don't have any carcasses here for u to eat, u freak!!

anyways, my point was that guru nanak gave a hukam to bhai lehna, which is completely different. let me explain why...

bhai lehna accepted guru nanak dev ji as his guru, & so it was his dharam to follow what guru nanak dev ji said... hence eating the carcass was also his dharam. in that sakhi, guru nanak did not break his own dharam, nor did bhai lehna.... whereas, guru gobind singh ji did break his dharam by bowing to a tomb.

hmmm... i think i just answered my original question in a roundabout way... cool! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...