☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jass Singh" data-source="post: 21720" data-attributes="member: 1904"><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Inderjitji</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Finally you come down to earth & start using understandable language. Your excuse about paradigm shifts is a lame excuse to avoid logical argumentation & the normal rules of debate. It is what is termed an ARGUMENT STOPPERS</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">[ways of avoiding reasoning] which is a verbal response to argumentation that is intended to have the effect of ENDING RATIONAL debate in its tracks. In effect you are saying “I’m not going to even consider what you have to say. It is hypocritical bias and prejudice to the nth degree. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Because you deny logic & reason yet use it, you do not have a credible position. You seem to think that the use of reason & logic is somehow a paradigm shift from the teachings of Sikhism. Yet you are blind to the fact that in trying to prove your worldview is correct & mine is wrong you are unwittingly & unconsciously using the very basic principle of logic – the law of non-contradiction. (The </span><a href="http://www.experiencefestival.com/law_of_non-contradiction" target="_blank"><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Law of non-contradiction</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> is the </span><a href="http://www.experiencefestival.com/law" target="_blank"><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">law</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.) It is either your view or my view, not both. You are saying that a view (e.g A) and its contradictory (not-A) cannot be simultaneously true. You cannot deny that this is in fact what you are doing. In contradicting your worldview that does not allow you to use logic you cut off the branch on which you are sitting & commit intellectual suicide. Why are you even trying to prove anything if you truly do not believe the law of non contradiction? </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Harry Gensler, in Formal Ethics, p.36 offers an amusing dialogue between two Hegelians:</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: #677d8b"><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'">!</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #677d8b"><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #677d8b"><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"></span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: No they aren't!</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: Yes they are!</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: And you're also not getting confused, right?</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Similarly in your contradictory world where the laws of logic do not apply and P is compatible with not-P it does not matter whether Jesus claimed deity or not. After all Jesus is God is compatible with Jesus is not God & you are wasting your time even discussing it. From now on I shall assume that since you are on this discussion forum, then the use of the laws of logic will not be questioned by you. If you can confirm this in the affirmative, I will reply to your objections about the deity of Christ. If you are unwilling to confirm your acceptance of the laws of logic you really have NOTHING to say. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">And if you are serious about your questions & objections about the reliability of the Bible & the historicity of the New Testament why have you not started a new thread so that I can reply? On this particular thread, I refuse to be side tracked from the topic of discussion by your red herrings. </span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Jass Singh</span></span></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jass Singh, post: 21720, member: 1904"] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Inderjitji[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Finally you come down to earth & start using understandable language. Your excuse about paradigm shifts is a lame excuse to avoid logical argumentation & the normal rules of debate. It is what is termed an ARGUMENT STOPPERS[/COLOR][/B][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][B][COLOR=green][ways of avoiding reasoning] which is a verbal response to argumentation that is intended to have the effect of ENDING RATIONAL debate in its tracks. In effect you are saying “I’m not going to even consider what you have to say. It is hypocritical bias and prejudice to the nth degree. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Because you deny logic & reason yet use it, you do not have a credible position. You seem to think that the use of reason & logic is somehow a paradigm shift from the teachings of Sikhism. Yet you are blind to the fact that in trying to prove your worldview is correct & mine is wrong you are unwittingly & unconsciously using the very basic principle of logic – the law of non-contradiction. (The [/FONT][URL="http://www.experiencefestival.com/law_of_non-contradiction"][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Law of non-contradiction[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL][FONT=Times New Roman] is the [/FONT][URL="http://www.experiencefestival.com/law"][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]law[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL][FONT=Times New Roman] that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.) It is either your view or my view, not both. You are saying that a view (e.g A) and its contradictory (not-A) cannot be simultaneously true. You cannot deny that this is in fact what you are doing. In contradicting your worldview that does not allow you to use logic you cut off the branch on which you are sitting & commit intellectual suicide. Why are you even trying to prove anything if you truly do not believe the law of non contradiction? [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Harry Gensler, in Formal Ethics, p.36 offers an amusing dialogue between two Hegelians:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]A: Are you still a follower of Hegel? B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P. A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=#677d8b][FONT=Georgia]! [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic. A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P. B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. A: No they aren't! B: Yes they are! A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P. B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused. A: And you're also not getting confused, right?[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Similarly in your contradictory world where the laws of logic do not apply and P is compatible with not-P it does not matter whether Jesus claimed deity or not. After all Jesus is God is compatible with Jesus is not God & you are wasting your time even discussing it. From now on I shall assume that since you are on this discussion forum, then the use of the laws of logic will not be questioned by you. If you can confirm this in the affirmative, I will reply to your objections about the deity of Christ. If you are unwilling to confirm your acceptance of the laws of logic you really have NOTHING to say. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]And if you are serious about your questions & objections about the reliability of the Bible & the historicity of the New Testament why have you not started a new thread so that I can reply? On this particular thread, I refuse to be side tracked from the topic of discussion by your red herrings. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Jass Singh[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Many Christians Believe That Jesus Is God. What Does Sikhism Say About It?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top