Why is Sikhism the True Religion?

you might notice, that its not ME to say Jesus Christ is the only way to God the father, but its actually the bible. I just confess what i believe, namely that what the bible tells its true.

what is your evidence to make this claim ?

I dont need the bible to show, its related facts are true, are history. Just examine the archaeological and extra biblical historic record, and you will understand, that the bible is absolutely trustworthy.

Archeology proves the historicity of the bible is true

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...-true-t190.htm

Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit testifies the Bible is true

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...-true-t282.htm

Are the bible translations accurate and trustworthy ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...orthy-t258.htm

this is a section of interfaith dialogues. Than you should expect, that people of other faiths/beliefs come, and present, what they believe in. If you do not like to know my faith better, than nobody is obliging you to stay here at this thread.

I am more than happy to elucidate my faith to anyone, which is truly interested, without prejudgement, with the only goal to condemn my faith, and the bible, and this , in a disrespectful manner.

 
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!

Seeker9

Yes when one proclaims the "truth" in any forum one should expect challenges from skeptics and nonbelievers. When one proclaims a Christian "truth" on a Sikh forum one should expect challenges from Sikhs. Your critique of a circular argument is a good one. And it to this point serves as a logical refutation of all we have read of the Christian truth on this thread.

I would also like to add that the bafflement expressed so far by you, Tejwant ji, ugsbay ji, and me in no way suggest we did not get the idea that the Christian God punishes "sin" as he/Christians define it.

Karios ji, We get it. We can read. We are asking rather, Why should anyone accept the truth or the "love" of a violent parent or spouse who is given to exacting tribute in the most angry ways? Why pledge one's trust in a protector and supporter who is emotionally unstable and given to mood swings? Likewise why choose such a god? An all powerful creator, supporter, protector, it seems, would be beyond emotional excesses, and mood swings.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/31467-why-is-sikhism-the-true-religion.html

And in knowing His Own omnipotence completely then why would he punish sin? He would understand the limitations of His Creation, and offer something other than revenge and spiteful retribution when his wishes were not carried out.

And insofar as He is the Creator of Everything, how could His wishes not be carried out? Why would He be angry at all? What happens is all His Will. Nothing happens outside of that. If anything did happen outside of the oribt if His Omnipotence, He would not be Omnipotent. And He would be wasting time getting angry at Himself.

Note: I use He to equal Ik Oankaar: One doer of everything, who is eternal truth/reality, who is Self-existent and complete within Himself, who is without hatred or enmity, because he has no need for hatred nor enmity, who is beyond time , is formless and is self-created. He has no need to punish sin.

the God i know, is mercyful, as written :

Isajah 55:6 Seek the Lord while he makes himself available; 16
call to him while he is nearby!
55:7 The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle 17
and sinful people their plans. 18
They should return 19 to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them, 20
and to their God, for he will freely forgive them. 21
55:8 “Indeed, 22 my plans 23 are not like 24 your plans,
and my deeds 25 are not like 26 your deeds,
55:9 for just as the sky 27 is higher than the earth,
so my deeds 28 are superior to 29 your deeds
and my plans 30 superior to your plans.

If God is love, he cannot accept desctructive, egoistic, sinful, violent and criminal behavior. God's anger, and God's love , are truly two sides of the same medal. Also, if God truly loves us, he cannot either admit, that his love is dismissed and rejected. Otherwise, he would accept that his wish to give us a fullfilled and happy life, would be a failure , and not be accomplished. God truly suffers, when is love is being rejected. Gods love is also expressed in the prophecy in the book of jesaja, about the coming of the messiah, which would take upon him the suffering of all of us ( this was written 700bC) :

53:1 Who would have believed 1 what we 2 just heard? 3
When 4 was the Lord’s power 5 revealed through him?
53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God, 6
like a root out of parched soil; 7
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, 8
no special appearance that we should want to follow him. 9
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, 10
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him; 11
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. 12
53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain; 13
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. 14
53:5 He was wounded because of 15 our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well; 16
because of his wounds we have been healed. 17
53:6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. 18
53:7 He was treated harshly and afflicted, 19
but he did not even open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block,
like a sheep silent before her shearers,
he did not even open his mouth. 20
53:8 He was led away after an unjust trial 21 –
but who even cared? 22
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living; 23
because of the rebellion of his own 24 people he was wounded.
53:9 They intended to bury him with criminals, 25
but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, 26
because 27 he had committed no violent deeds,
nor had he spoken deceitfully.
53:10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
once restitution is made, 28
he will see descendants and enjoy long life, 29
and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
53:11 Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. 30
“My servant 31 will acquit many, 32
for he carried their sins. 33
53:12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, 34
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, 35
because he willingly submitted 36 to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many
and intervened 37 on behalf of the rebels.”

I choose him, because i believe the God of the bible is the ONLY true living God.

Of course not. God has given us a free will. So we can act in accordance with his will, or against it. Love is only possible, if true free will and freedom exists. Otherwise, we would act like robots, programmed to do always the will of God.

God has choosen freely to give up until a certain point his omnipotence, and gave us free will. He respects it, to make true love possible.

Kairos ji

you said [If God is love, he cannot accept desctructive, egoistic, sinful, violent and criminal behavior. God's anger, and God's love , are truly two sides of the same medal. Also, if God truly loves us, he cannot either admit, that his love is dismissed and rejected. Otherwise, he would accept that his wish to give us a fullfilled and happy life, would be a failure , and not be accomplished. God truly suffers, when is love is being rejected. Gods love is also expressed in the prophecy in the book of jesaja, about the coming of the messiah, which would take upon him the suffering of all of us ( this was written 700bC) ]
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31467


My observation from the above paragraph is that at least since 700 BC humans have been projecting the syndrome of human emotions, and particularly the syndrome of a love hate relationship, which comes from a human fear of dependency and helplessness, onto an image of God. Thus it is God who is made by humans to seem as if he suffers from ambivalence, in spite of the fact that an Omnipotent God would not suffer at all. Why would an Omnipotent Power suffer? Some Sikhs scholars would explain the above paragraph as evidence of the essential duality of the Human/God connection in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other Abrahamic religions. In that view, humans make God into their image. Since these are patriarchal societies they even make God into a powerful and violent father figure who has a need to impose his will and seek retribution when his will is defied. In the most barbaric ways.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31467

If God is omnipotent, neither male nor female, having no beginning nor end, what need is there for all this drama? If God's anger and love are two sides of the same coin, as you say, then he is a creature of his own emotions. If God is affected adversely by the rejection of his love, then he is not offering love but emotional blackmail. It is hard for a Sikh to see any divinity in the psychological profile you have just presented.

The question of free will is a good one. What kind of free will is it that humans have if they can expect retribution if they use it and don't come up with the "right" answer according to an emotionally needy god? Rather what you have portrayed is what we now diagnose as a narcissistic personality disorder. I know that Christianity can do better than that.

http://www.fallenandflawed.com/can-god-suffer/

The Difficult Doctrine That Should Never Be Neglected

To be perfectly honest, the doctrine of God’s impassibility is a difficult doctrine. But you shouldn’t ignore it. A lot hinges on this doctrine.

First, let’s define impassibility.

To say that God is impassible is to say that God is without passion. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is “without body, parts, or passions, immutable.”

What is passion? Passion can be described any powerful feeling or emotion, like joy, grief, hatred or regret.

According to Clark Pinnock, a passionate “God is not cool and collected but is deeply involved and can be wounded.”

But there are serious problems if this is true of God.

Why We Don’t Want God to Be Passionate

Imagine: God in one hour pulled in one million different directions by things people say and do. If this were true, then God would not be in control of his own mind or moods.

Furthermore, if this were true, what guarantee do we have that God’s love will be constant?

God’s stability was Jeremiah’s main argument for trusting in God’s faithfulness. And in Malachi 3:6 God says, “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.”

God’s consistency should encourage and satisfy us. Because He is always in love with the obedient and always at odds with the wicked, we will never doubt what he thinks about us.

However, nothing in the world can inflict misery or pain on God. Let me show you what I mean.

Biblically, God Can’t Suffer

The Bible teaches that God is the source and will behind all of his affections. All action in the universe springs ultimately from God.

“He is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.” Acts 17:25

Passion involves a desire for what is lacking. God lacks nothing. God is an all perfect being, thus lacks nothing and craves nothing.

But this does not mean that he doesn’t have feelings.

Does This Doctrine Diminish God’s Love?

God has feelings. The Bible clearly teaches this. For example, God’s spirit is grieved at sin. He hates evil. And God’s jealousy burns with anger against sin.

However, Philip Johnson argues, even though God has these feelings, he’s not a slave to fits of melancholy or bouts of rage:

…Scripture often stresses the constancy of God’s love, the infiniteness of his mercies, the certainty of His promises, the unchangeableness of His mind, and the lack of any fluctuation in His perfections.

James 1:17 said, God “does not change like shifting shadows.” On the other hand, our feelings toward evil, love, faith, change.

Which brings me to my next point.

Never Make This Serious Mistake About God

Whether you like it or not, God is not like you. The Bible says:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8

Furthermore, you must recognize that you and I cannot fully understand God without adjusting our language. That’s why in order to understand God, we use human language.

We can learn much from figures of speech, nevertheless God still remains inscrutable. So, what are we to think when God became so angry at Israel that he threatened to wipe the nation out and cancel the covenant with Abraham?

What we can’t do is make God look like an ogre prone to temper tantrums. It’s a serious mistake to project our passions onto God.

God is not like men.

Nor can we say that God is removed or aloof. As Johnson explains, it takes a personal God to make this kind of threat.

Christian GOD that Kairos serves:

"I am the LORD, your GOD, ...... And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus 26:13,29)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...nning-t199.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big...rity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.


If God would be the universe, and the universe had a absolute beginning, then God would have had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. that cause was God.

God must therefore be a separate entity of the universe. Pantheismus must therefore be false.

Curiously, suddenly, Kairos ji

You give many references in your reply to me as to why God cannot be an tangle of contradictory emotions. Yet there are many quotations from this Bible in which this god is full of emotions. And, you have not replied to a key point. When god is portrayed as emotional these are human emotions. Are not humans projecting their own emotional natures on god in the Bible? Why would an emotional god be worthy of trust? Why would a god who created everything need to punish sin? Why would such a god need anything? The all powerful has everything.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31467

You evaded another issue. How does this god's gift of free will as you understand free will provide opportunities to prove our love for that god? Why would the loss of love be a concern for an omnipotent being. In Gurbani we have a God who "keeps on giving" in spite of the moral failings of humans, and we keep taking as there can be no way to repay the all powerful who is the source of everything. This love is unconditional.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31467

How does an argument from astrophysics answer my questions? Or have you switched gears?

We are raising legitimate queries which you have consistently failed to answer convincingly. Again, I challenge you to respond without recourse to quotations and web links

Kairos ji,

You don't think so? You don't think that the written word is subject to individual interperation? The sir your thinking must be wrong.

I do not belive that Jesus is the only way to God, I can't I'm Sikh and that is not what our Guru ji says.
Further even a minimum amount of pondering on the issue informs me that people are differant, we do not all think alike, nor are our cultures the same. Logicaly then there are perhaps two main conclusions that we can reach.

God has created differant people and differant cultures yet choosen only one peoples or one cultural practive as the only valid way to God.

Or.

God has created each peoples, each culture and each mindset with way to reach God.

I simply do not belive the first is the act of a loving God, and I belive in a loving God. So the latter must be the better option.

Instead of looking at the diffrances in scripture, and then saying, well this says this and that say that so that must be false and this true.
Look for the simularities and think about why they are there. What are the differances and what are the simularities?

To aid you consider this from a discusion elsewhere about the golden rule:

In Christianity:

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." - Jesus, Matthew 7:12

In Judaism:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary." - Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a

In Islam:

"Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself." - Muhammad, Hadith

In the Baha'i Faith:

"Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself." - Baha'u'llah, Gleanings

In Hinduism:

"This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." - Mahabharata 5:1517

In Buddhism:

"Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5.18

In Confucianism:

"One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct... loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." - Confucius, Analects 15.23

In Taoism:

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." - T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218

In Sikhism:

"I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all." - Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299

In Unitarianism:

"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." - Unitarian principle

In Native Spirituality:

"We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive." - Chief Dan George

In Zoroastrianism:

"Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself." - Shayast-na-Shayat 13.29

In Jainism:

"One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated." - Mahavira, Sutrakritanga


Note particularly the top two. 'This is the law' and 'This is the whole of the Torah'

As I say all religious scripture contianes the same kernal of truth, all of the rest is window dressing.

What is this truth then?

There is one God, who created everthing and is all pervading. Because of this God requires us to love each other as we would love God.

It's been said time and time and time agian, in many differant ways. Why many differant ways? Because there are simply many differant people, with differing intelects, attitudes, belifes and POV.

It makes sense of a loving God does it not?