Youtube Videos on Sikhism and Christianity

Admin note: Forum member ji - The thread starter has proffered many distortions of Gurbani and Sikh history on this thread. Read with caution.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/christianity/26830-youtube-videos-on-sikhism-and-christianity.html

Hi Brethren,

I am a retired lecturer in Metallurgy and I preach Sikhism and Christianity. I believe that Sikhism is continuation of Christianity and this Harmandir Sahib and the Amrit Srovar are the Replacement of the destroyed Jerusalem Temple and the Bethseda Pool of Mercy. We shouldpreach Gospel in the local language by rendering the exposition of the Parables.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26830

If any one is interested to make documentaries or Films, I can provide the Scripts Free.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

The thread has been moved to Interfaith Dialogs Rajinder ji. The topic is very interesting and guaranteed to stimulate a lot of heated discussion. I would humbly implore you to avoid any proselytizing of the Christian Gospels, as this can be understood as undermining the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. It is a violation of forum rules. If you stay on the path of simlarities and differences between Sikhism and Christianity, then all will be well.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26830
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26830

Narayanjot Kaur

Thanks for the advice. Going to put a Link on Mool Mantar in Punjabi soon.

You are welcome. It is best to be on good terms.

This is going to be interesting.
We have seen people say Sikh are Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims... and recently on the forum we have had discussions on how Sikhism is like Atheism.
I knew people did say Sikhs are Christians but did not know the basis of their arguments.

Anyone can believe in anything... the ones with evidence are standing on much firmer ground than those without evidence.

I look forward to your posts.

Bhagat Singh ji

I value evidence as you do but logic also IMHO counts. The Gospels are sacred scriptures of the Christians. Likewise, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj is the sacred scripture of the Sikhs. Here is what I don't understand. If "Sikhism is a continuation of Christianity..." then why preach the Gospels? Why not preach Sri Guru Granth Sahib?

Narayanjot Kaur ji,
You couldn't be more right.

I guess, Logic + reasoning + empirical evidence + critical thinking.. are all part of the same bundle for me, which is why I only mention which I think is most important... empirical evidence.

Bhagat ji

Do have a care when valuing empirical evidence over logic. For one thing empirical truths have a habit of changing over time (cf. Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Also, the philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote about the problems with arguments that confuse empirical description with logical explanation. Imagine an argument in which the empirical basis of each premise is empirically true but the conclusion makes no sense.

My example of how this actually works with conspiracy theories: The jet that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was a US -owned and operated craft. Conspiracy theorists point to all sorts of facts (photos, etc.) to make a case that the US government was behind 9/11. However the facts don't fit together in a logical argument.

Premise: The wreckage contained no evidence of Al Qaida terrorists among the dead.
Premise: That very flight had vanished from air control radar screens prior to finding its intended target.
Conclusion: Therefore, the jet crash could not have been part of an Al Qaida terrorist plot, and was more likely a conspiracy on the part of the US government itself.


Then there is the problem of the naturalistic fallacy. See Logical Fallacies Naturalistic Fallacy

"An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. If the premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgment; you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. "

My example,


(1) There are many recorded examples of people who met God during a near death experience;
(2) Therefore there is every reason to believe that heaven and hell exist.

To describe things as they are does nothing to prove they way it should be. The argument’s conclusion, then, which is value judgment, cannot be supported by its premises.


Finally, if we move ahead to the thread topic, more problems arise if we apply your Rule For Evidence. Although those who believe that Jesus of the Gospels is an historical fact, the contemporary evidence for his existence is weak. And most of the evidence offered by believers comes from the centuries following his historical death and/or has serious problems associated with its authenticity.


For lack of evidence the thread could be doomed.

I am so disappointed to see that people do not know what the word Gospel stands for? It stands for Good News of His Word = Bani. Am I right?

Just I have rendered exposition of Moolmanttar and the first stanza of Japji Sahib. Tell me if any one has done the exposition of Sochian Soch na .... line correctly.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26830

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26830
Here is the link:-

The playlist was erased. Proselytizing is against forum rules. It also did not navigate to a playlist.

I will put a separate topic on this and others.