General Sikhism, A Religion Created By God

[BhagatSingh]

Yes i can imagine that god is in people who create religions, but that is my imagination, not the reality.

Continue to imagine that because in Sikhi that imagining of God in everyone really means treat everyone nicely.

Sikhi also says God is both Sargun and Nirgun so whatever you say about god cannot be wrong. but Its better to describe God in a certain way. Like describing him as loving rather than hating. Because God provides comfort to people so a loving God, as described in SGGS, was a smart move.

 

[sadhu]

BHagat singh ji

Continue to imagine that because in Sikhi that imagining of God in everyone really means treat everyone nicely.

We are drifting away from the point, but let us carry on.

Sikhi does not tells us to imagine anything. But Yes when all the imaginations are dropped, when a certain state of oneness is attained one cannot see anything except god. At that point efforts are not required to see god everywhere, and neither it is an imagination. It is a living experience. Just like we never have to imagine that we are breathing. Just like we never have to imagine that we are living in a biological body. Because it is our experience.
Experiencing god everywhere is totally different from imagining god. And you have to imagine only when you are not experiencing. If someone is imagining, it simply proofs that he is not experiencing. It simply proofs that he is still very far away. And the one who is experiencing will never ever have to imagine.
Imagination of god is a very poor substitute for the experience of god. Yes, imagination can make you a bit moral, but that morality too would not be of much use, because it is forced morality. First you force your imagination that everyone is god, then you force your morality on yourself. And anything that is forced is ugly. Because the very roots of your morality are fake, your morality too becomes a fake play. And fake morality is very dangerous, it gives you a false impression of yourself, it hides your true self from you.

 

[pk70]

I dont see god as separate, but infact i dont see the god at all.
That is enough for your enlightenment. Non believers say that there is no God. They are as much as entitled to their opinion as the believers are.

I can only see his creation, you tell me where is god?
Nothing is separate from Him, Guru says about that and I believe in it, if you don’t, that is fine with me because I don’t believe what you believe in or say
ਏਹੁ ਵਿਸੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਤੁਮ ਦੇਖਦੇ ਏਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਰੂਪੁ ਨਦਰੀ ਆਇਆ ॥(SGGS922)
Ėhu vis sansār ṯum ḏekẖ▫ḏe ehu har kā rūp hai har rūp naḏrī ā▫i▫ā.
This entire world, which ye behold is the Lord's manifestation. God's image alone is seen in it.

Don’t say that the creation is god. No, the creation is the creation.
I said nothing of my own, I said what Guru says, and I believe in it strongly
ਆਪੇ ਮਾਛੀ ਮਛੁਲੀ ਆਪੇ ਪਾਣੀ ਜਾਲੁ ॥ (SGGS23)
Āpe mācẖẖī macẖẖulī āpe pāṇī jāl.
He Himself is the fisherman and the fish and Himself the water and the net.
ਆਪੇ ਜਾਲ ਮਣਕੜਾ ਆਪੇ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਲਾਲੁ ॥੨॥
Āpe jāl maṇkaṛā āpe anḏar lāl. ||2||
He Himself is the metal ball of the net and Himself the bait within.
ਆਪੇ ਬਹੁ ਬਿਧਿ ਰੰਗੁਲਾ ਸਖੀਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਲਾਲੁ ॥
Āpe baho biḏẖ rangulā sakẖī▫e merā lāl.
My maid! my Beloved is in every way playful.

I see people, who start religions, thats it.
God never came into the picture
Your own observation is not the final truth; Sikhs believe what their Guru says.
ਛਿਅ ਘਰ ਛਿਅ ਗੁਰ ਛਿਅ ਉਪਦੇਸ ॥ (SGGS12)
Cẖẖi▫a gẖar cẖẖi▫a gur cẖẖi▫a upḏes.
There are six systems, six their teachers and six their doctrines.
ਗੁਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਏਕੋ ਵੇਸ ਅਨੇਕ ॥੧॥
Gur gur eko ves anek. ||1||
But the Teacher of teachers is but one Lord, though he has various vestures.
Yes i can imagine that god is in people who create religions, but that is my imagination, not the reality.
Imagining and experiencing are two different things The ones who experienced Him state that He permeates in His creation, what you say is a reality for you but who experienced Him tell otherwise.

 

[sadhu]

pk70 ji

Nothing is separate from Him, Guru says about that and I believe in it, if you don’t, that is fine with me because I don’t believe what you believe in or say

Nothing is separate from him, was the guru's experience, not yours.
You may believe him or not, but unless you yourself experience it, it will not make much of a difference.
If someone tasted the worlds finest wine, its his experience. You may believe him or not, it wont make much of a difference in your being. You yourself will have to taste it, to really understand the value of your guru's words.

 

[Archived_member7]

Sadhu ji ..i fail to understand ..wat ever religion u follow ..they told you abt hell and heaven..now did u challenge them and told them..." hey ..thats what you say..now let me die and see what is there "

If you and I were a Sidh we perhaps could have understood...we would have been different ...you are talking like a communist..

 

[pk70]

Nothing is separate from him, was the guru's experience, not yours.
You may believe him or not, but unless you yourself experience it, it will not make much of a difference.
I shared what Guru said. Here is the difference, to have that experience one has to know first what Guru says, then one must believe in it to follow that. What is wrong with that?
If someone tasted the worlds finest wine, its his experience. You may believe him or not, it wont make much of a difference in your being. You yourself will have to taste it, to really understand the value of your guru's words.
Testing the finest wine of the world is very poor comparison with experiencing the God. No follower of Guru was able to have that experience quickly because it is tough journey with a faith
ਖੰਨਿਅਹੁ ਤਿਖੀ ਵਾਲਹੁ ਨਿਕੀ ਏਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਜਾਣਾ ॥(SGGS918)
Kẖanni▫ahu ṯikẖī vālahu nikī eṯ mārag jāṇā.
They go by this road which is sharper than the two-edged sword and finer than a hair.
First a Sikh learns what Guru says, with a strong faith in Guru he/she starts that journey. So first comes faith in Guru-experience. If there is no faith, there is no hope of that experience that Guru has expressed.

 

[sadhu]

pk70 ji

I hope that experience happens to everyone who is seeking. And pk70 ji, please dont forget to tell me, when it happens to you. I hope it happens to you in this very life, and you can tell me what it really is.

The example of wine which you disliked is given in many sufi stories and poems.
They call their guru as a "saqi"[the one who serves wine]. And they say just the presence of the guru makes them so much ecstatic, that they call themselves as drunkards, in their poems. And sufi stories and poems are one of the most beautiful, because they are written by sufi mystics, the ones who have known the mysteries of the eternal.

Havent you read Rumi?

 

[pk70]

I hope that experience happens to everyone who is seeking. And pk70 ji, please dont forget to tell me, when it happens to you. I hope it happens to you in this very life, and you can tell me what it really is.
Thanks for wishful thinking.

The example of wine which you disliked is given in many sufi stories and poems. They call their guru as a "saqi"[the one who serves wine]. And they say just the presence of the guru makes them so much ecstatic, that they call themselves as drunkards, in their poems. And sufi stories and poems are one of the most beautiful, because they are written by sufi mystics, the ones who have known the mysteries of the eternal.
As per your own token, that experience was of those Sufi mystics not yours. Are you their follower? If so, I wish you good luck to taste that wine
Havent you read Rumi?
Sadhu is, I do not need Rumi, I have Guru Nanak. I do not need Budha, I have Guru Nanak. I didn’t share with you others but Guru Nanak. If that guy is your savior, I respect that.

 

[sadhu]

As per your own token, that experience was of those Sufi mystics not yours. Are you their follower? If so, I wish you good luck to taste that wine

Yes it was their experience not mine.

Sadhu is, I do not need Rumi, I have Guru Nanak. I do not need Budha, I have Guru Nanak. I didn’t share with you others but Guru Nanak. If that guy is your savior, I respect that.

Neither you have nanak, nor do you need Rumi or buddha. Nanak, Rumi, and Buddha are no longer present. They were present long time back. And even at that time there were many people who said, "We have Ram, our saviour, WE DONT NEED A LIVING GURU", or we have "Quran our saviour, WE DONT NEED A LIVING GURU", or "we have bible our saviour, WE DONT NEED ANYBODY", they never went to Nanak, they never went to Buddha, they never went to Rumi, because they were clinging so strongly to their holy books and to their dead gurus. But they missed. They missed something that could have tranformed their lives. They missed some of the most beautiful mystics and saints who were alive on this earth.
But again people dont change, still there are many who cling to their holy books, and to their dead gurus and miss the alive ones. They cling to the dead ones so strongly that they miss the alive ones.
Its like someone clings to a dead flower, and hates the alive ones.
The alive one has a fragrance arising out of it. The fragrance of the dead one has not dissapeared, but is now diluted in the air, its fragrance has now dissolved in the air. Still their, but dissolved.
The gurus who are dead, have the fragrance of their consciousess dissolved in the universe, and to feel them you have to be an enlightened man yourself. But we are not enlightened yet, our senstivity cannot even feel an "alive enlightened being", how would it feel the one who has dissolved in the cosmos?
And yet people carry on, because it is very hard for their egos to digest that a human being, an alive human being can be a living god. Its very hard for their egos to bow down and to surrender in front of a living master. It hurts their egos, it shatters their very roots. They find it easy to worship the dead ones and bow before the dead books, because a dead guru or a book wont say anything to you. An alive guru will constantly keep your ego on its toes, untill it collapses. An alive guru will make you walk on sword's blade. And that is the true meaning of "sikhi khandeyon tikhi". It is very difficult to be around a living master. Because the maser is constantly behind you, infact he is actually behind you ego. And you are nothing but your ego, a false substitute for your real self. The master wants you to know your real self.
But many people cling to their egos so strongly, that they never turn up to a living master. On the contrary they condemn the living gurus.

Nobody can be my saviour, neither yours, not even gurunanak.
Guru can show the path. The disciple has to walk it on its own.

 

[pk70]

Neither you have Nanak, nor do you need Rumi or buddha. Nanak, Rumi, and Buddha are no longer present.
Why Sadhu ji you have failed to understand what exists behind the names you just mentioned?
They were present long time back. And even at that time there were many people who said, "We have Ram, our saviour, WE DONT NEED A LIVING GURU", or we have "Quran our saviour, WE DONT NEED A LIVING GURU", or "we have bible our saviour, WE DONT NEED ANYBODY", they never went to Nanak, they never went to Buddha, they never went to Rumi, because they were clinging to so strongly to their holy books and to their dead gurus.
It is amazing why you are stuck with appearances. Guru bodily dies but his thought goes on, we are clinging to Guru Nanak’s thought not to the body, just for your information since you are too confused here.

But they missed. They missed something that could have tranformed their lives. They missed some of the most beautiful mystics and saints who were alive on this earth.
Who has thought of Guru, they really do not need mystics etc, if they cannot live that thought they wont be able to get any thing from any body.

But again people dont change, still there are many who cling to their holy books, and their dead gurus and miss the alive ones. They cling to the dead ones so strongly
that they miss the alive ones.


What are you thinking Sadhu is? Gone are the appearances, thought becomes eternal. It is matter of choice. You chose Budha or Rumi or what ever, I chose Guru Nanak. Sticking to appearances is not even an issue here but unnecessarily you are making it.

Its like someone clings to a dead flower, and hates the alive ones.
The alive one has a fragrance arising out of it. The fragrance of the dead one has not dissapeared, but is now diluted in the air, its fragrance has now dissolved in the air. Still their, but dissolved.
Very poor observation of theThought Sadhu is. Thought has fragrance, who has ability to understand it, enjoys it, others just keep commenting uncalled for
The gurus who are dead, have the fragrance of their consciousess dissolved in the universe, and to feel them you have to be an enlightened man yourself. But we are not enlightened yet, our senstivity cannot even feel an "alive enlightened being", how would it feel the one who has dissolved in the cosmos?
Again, your poor observation is stuck with appearances; thought is all over like air.
And yet people carry on, because it is very hard for their egos to digest that a human being, an alive human being can be a living god. Its very hard for their egos to bow down and to surrender in front of a living master. It hurts their egos, it shatters their very roots. They find it easy to worship the dead ones and bow before the dead books, because a dead guru or a book wont say anything to you
What kind of dream you are having? I never discussed that issue with you.
An alive guru will constantly keep your ego on its toes, untill it collapses. An alive guru will make you walk on swords blade. And that is the true meaning of "sikhi khandeyon tikhi".
Its your opinion, we also feel alive Guru can exploit people as it is very hard to find true Guru. Sikhs do not have that problem because they cling not to the body of the Guru but thought.
Talking about people’s going stray, we witness alive Guru also meet the same fate. It is the sincerity of the follower that counts.
It is very difficult to be around a living master. Because the maser is constantly behind you, infact he is actually behind you ego. And you are nothing but your ego, a false substitute for your real self. The master wants you to know your real self.
Many people living around living Masters remained empty. If it suits you, good luck. I never said, it is not good for you
But many people cling to their egos so strongly, that they never turn up to a living master. On the contrary they condemn the living gurus.
It is a matter of choice, you have yours I have mine. You feel comfortable with living Guru, I am comfortable with Guru’s thought. So what is your problem here?

Nobody can be my saviour, neither yours, not even gurunanak.
You can speak on your behalf but not for others. There is a big difference, you are Sadhu ji, I am Pk70. How you look at things is not the final truth neither as I do.
Guru can show the path. The disciple has to walk it on its own.
We know that, thanks.

 

[spnadmin]

pk70 ji

I hope that experience happens to everyone who is seeking. And pk70 ji, please dont forget to tell me, when it happens to you. I hope it happens to you in this very life, and you can tell me what it really is.

The example of wine which you disliked is given in many sufi stories and poems.
They call their guru as a "saqi"[the one who serves wine]. And they say just the presence of the guru makes them so much ecstatic, that they call themselves as drunkards, in their poems. And sufi stories and poems are one of the most beautiful, because they are written by sufi mystics, the ones who have known the mysteries of the eternal.

Havent you read Rumi?

Now here is the interesting thing about Rumi -- He had a skeptical view of philosophical discourse. Naturally he was not averse to teaching and learning through philosophical questions. But, his manner was more to tease the intellect so that it would be confounded into utter silence. Once silent, then knowing the powerful creator becomes a possibility. Some examples of mind stopping, stops, stopped.

Remember God so much that you are forgotten.
Let the caller and the called disappear;
be lost in the Call.

........

• My head is bursting
  with the joy of the unknown.
  My heart is expanding a thousand fold.
  Every cell,
  taking wings,
  flies about the world.
  All seek separately
  the many faces of my Beloved.

.............

I don't know where I am.
At times I plunge
to the bottom of the sea,
at times, rise up
like the Sun. At times, the universe is pregnant by me,
at times I give birth to it.

 

[tony]

The previous post whilst being most fascinating and all pionts of view having good groundings for being true, I feel sometimes the real message is being missed. All religions i believe where started by God as the same message is being preached. Noah and Mosses from the old testaments said God had spoken to them. Jesus said he was the son of God as we all are, and spoke of doing good to your fellow man, Mohamed also said that he spoke the words of God. The problem only araises in these religions when mortal men who have had no contact with God interfers and adds his own perspectives to the Holy books. The religion then becomes a means of control of man by other men. the very Fact that they threated an eternal damnation in a burning hell if you dont do there will. Sikhism however doesnt threated with this and teaches of good will to all around you, enviroment included. It is further more untouched by man because it is written as spoken by the Guru jis, Gods message remains intact. The Guru jis told us Gods will was to treat all equally and fairly and that no amount of praying will bring salvation it is only by our actions one will reach enlightenment. No amount of rituals, the carrying of sacred items, Fastings and pilgrimages will ever bring salvation for your wrong doings, Your evil doings are only counteracted by the good you do. The way to God cannot be found by studying the Guru Granth Sahid ji looking for some deep hidden meaning. The Gurus jis spoke to simple men and not men with degrees in sciences or graduates of universities so why would they hide Gods message in hard to understand poems. Whilst you are seeking to find these deep subliminal messages you're probably missing the real truth. The message is simple treat all equally in all you do, have no intent of malace in your heart or thoughts of evil in you mind and then God will fill all with love. So YES i do think Sikhism was created by God, but then they all are, Sikhism though is the only one that is untouched by controlling men and our mission should be to keep it that way. These are the pionts of view from a simple man with a simple education trying to follow a simple message. God blesses all who bless His creations
Tony

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Tony Ji..
I find you are understanding the Divine Message of Guru nanak ji much more than you may even suspect..You are already on the correct path..keep going. Best wishes.

 

[spnadmin]

tony ji

Here is where I must respectfully disagree with you -- and at the risk of inviting criticism from some of my Sikh sangat. I hope not. Let me make this statement and then say why it was important for me to include some thoughts and images from Rumi.

There is a widespread desire to claim that religions are shallow and corruptible. And to add to this that we all worship the same God. Permit me to suggest that we may not be worshiping the same God, because our construction of God is quite different from faith to faith. Often the followers of a path worship a God as described to them by religion. The descriptions are very different.

Jews and Muslims worship a God who demands/demanded sacrifice as a proof of faith and a test of purity. Christians worship a God who made a sacrifice of his only son as proof of his love and offer of salvation. Sikhs in stark contrast follow a path whose founder, Guru Nanak Dev ji, states over and over again in Gurbani -- I make a sacrifice of MYSELF, I sacrifice myself to the Naam, I sacrifice myself to the holy congregation, I sacrifice myself to the company of the holy, I sacrifice myself to the feet of the saints.

Look at who is demanding and who is making sacrifices in these three traditions! It is not the same across traditions, is it? Guru Nanak offers a transformational thought! Faith and devotion in Sikhism is to a God (Divine Consciousness) who makes no demands and of whom consciousness is freely obtained in a fundamentally personal way.

Consciousness of God in the other religions mentioned is of a God who is fundamentally separate -- and there is always a dualism between God and Devotee. The divide is overcome by "sacrifice" by one to the other. Either human to God; or by God to human. As if an old dispute required compensation to be set straight. This is not found in Sikhism.

I must disagree with your fundamental thesis therefore. Please do not be offended.

Now why did I take a risk and quote Rumi -- who was the Sufi who began the traditional sema ritual now practiced by whirling dervishes. I quoted Rumi because I do not agree with the statements made by forum member Sahdu ji either. Please do not be offended. :idea:

Rumi, unlike his fellows in Islam, saw God, not as God, but as a Divine Consciousness, for whom the only sadness (no disputes here either) was to be unseen by the faithful. The Divine for Rumi dwelt within each and every heart. The Divine is ever present within individual consciousness. The Divine is not understood or obtained by rational argument and discussion because intelligence is mind not heart. In fact all modes of deliberate intelligence and ratonal effort to bridge the painful sense of separation from the Divine will obscure the Divine, who can only be understood and obtained by intuition, and by reaching a state of "thoughtless-ness" and total absorption in the flow or energy of the universe.

Read the snippets again. See and hear Rumi saying to the beloved Divine: You are my beloved. You are always within me, and I need only to find myself within you. As our Gurus say to us: The fish is in the ocean; the ocean is in the fish. This realization is fundamentally voluntary and fundamentally personal.

Equivalences of God-conscousness across patterns of religions and belief in God are just not there.

 

[tony]

Hi Antonia ji
I may have not explained myself properly. I wasnt trying to say we all worship the same God although I think we do, As Guru Nanak said there is no muslim or hindu he implies that we do. All religions have basically the same message to be good at heart, the problem as I see it is the way they like to describe God and the way to worship him, also in that all the other holy books are stories handed down from century to century untill they where finally written which gave rise to mans own interpretations and a way to justify their controll over others. Each different religion having a different way to repent, most using Gods name to justify invasions of other countries saying they are spreading Gods name when really they are plundering the riches of the invaded country (england in india for example). Nobody knows for sure what christ was telling the people 2000yrs ago or how much has been changed to justify the fowl deeds of the rulers(I was told that the word virgin 2000 yrs ago didnt mean untouched it was used to describe a woman of child bearing age which if aplied to the story of jesus would have meant that mary was old enough to have children). Guru Nanak ji never sort to convert anyone only tell them that it is your everyday actions and not rituals that will affect you after your spirit leaves your body. I believe that what he was trying to say was that God made every thing you can see around you so to do harm to any one was to do harm to god himself. God is all and all is God. What I was also trying to say was that while one is trying to find a deep hidden message is one able to empty ones mind and only have the thoughts of God in it as you put it thoughtlessness. if doing good comes naturally to one without having to think about it then your thoughts can only be about God. empty your mind of all things other than God and he will be your guide. All the prophets in all the religions have tried to tell men of their wrong doings and only the Guru Granth Sahib ji is untouched and unpolluted by evil men trying to controll others, evidence is in the fact that Sikhism doesnt seek to convert and it is totally with out threat of Gods retribution if you fail ie No mention of an eternal flaming hell. As for sacrifices did Noah, mosses, jesus, mohamed or any other prophet in these religions say it was needed or was it the mere mortals addition to them to make them differ from each other, I dont know the answer as i wasnt there. What I do know is that Sikhism is the true way as it only asks that I do good to all others and nothing else is asked of me.
Love and respect to all
Tony

 

[Tejwant Singh]

tony ji

Here is where I must respectfully disagree with you -- and at the risk of inviting criticism from some of my Sikh sangat. I hope not. Let me make this statement and then say why it was important for me to include some thoughts and images from Rumi.

There is a widespread desire to claim that religions are shallow and corruptible. And to add to this that we all worship the same God. Permit me to suggest that we may not be worshiping the same God, because our construction of God is quite different from faith to faith. Often the followers of a path worship a God as described to them by religion. The descriptions are very different.

Jews and Muslims worship a God who demands/demanded sacrifice as a proof of faith and a test of purity. Christians worship a God who made a sacrifice of his only son as proof of his love and offer of salvation. Sikhs in stark contrast follow a path whose founder, Guru Nanak Dev ji, states over and over again in Gurbani -- I make a sacrifice of MYSELF, I sacrifice myself to the Naam, I sacrifice myself to the holy congregation, I sacrifice myself to the company of the holy, I sacrifice myself to the feet of the saints.

Look at who is demanding and who is making sacrifices in these three traditions! It is not the same across traditions, is it? Guru Nanak offers a transformational thought! Faith and devotion in Sikhism is to a God (Divine Consciousness) who makes no demands and of whom consciousness is freely obtained in a fundamentally personal way.

Consciousness of God in the other religions mentioned is of a God who is fundamentally separate -- and there is always a dualism between God and Devotee. The divide is overcome by "sacrifice" by one to the other. Either human to God; or by God to human. As if an old dispute required compensation to be set straight. This is not found in Sikhism.

I must disagree with your fundamental thesis therefore. Please do not be offended.

Now why did I take a risk and quote Rumi -- who was the Sufi who began the traditional sema ritual now practiced by whirling dervishes. I quoted Rumi because I do not agree with the statements made by forum member Sahdu ji either. Please do not be offended. :idea:

Rumi, unlike his fellows in Islam, saw God, not as God, but as a Divine Consciousness, for whom the only sadness (no disputes here either) was to be unseen by the faithful. The Divine for Rumi dwelt within each and every heart. The Divine is ever present within individual consciousness. The Divine is not understood or obtained by rational argument and discussion because intelligence is mind not heart. In fact all modes of deliberate intelligence and ratonal effort to bridge the painful sense of separation from the Divine will obscure the Divine, who can only be understood and obtained by intuition, and by reaching a state of "thoughtless-ness" and total absorption in the flow or energy of the universe.

Read the snippets again. See and hear Rumi saying to the beloved Divine: You are my beloved. You are always within me, and I need only to find myself within you. As our Gurus say to us: The fish is in the ocean; the ocean is in the fish. This realization is fundamentally voluntary and fundamentally personal.

Equivalences of God-conscousness across patterns of religions and belief in God are just not there.

Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

There can not be any criticism for you quoting Rumi. Rumi was a great Sufi poet. Many of his poems echo Gurmat ideals. SGGS does not prohibit us not to read anyother books or materials but to the contrary. It gives us the framework to become openminded sans bias so we have enough tools to reject what is Manmat-inhumane and what is Gurmat- One that breeds goodness in humanity.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[BhagatSingh]

I wasnt trying to say we all worship the same God although I think we do, As Guru Nanak said there is no muslim or hindu he implies that we do

.
He was trying to bring people together. He knew both worshipped a different God and he rejected the bad bits of both keeping what he thought would be an intelligent way to describe God. Of crouse, the Sargun Nirgun concept is also there which takes into account any God.

All the prophets in all the religions have tried to tell men of their wrong doings

Not all prophets did that, and not all were prophets.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Dear All,
The basic problem that we all face is "terminology".
There is GOD..and there is "God..the father-God the Son God the Holy Ghost"....then there is God - the Allah ( Incidentally by a recently passed Law..we NON-Muslims in Malaysia cannot use the word A***H in any writing/poll/newspaper/publishing materials/etc etc among a few other "muslim" words !!..or we will be dragged to court -)..and various other usages of the same WORD.
But we forget or take for granted that the PERSONALITY behind the "Same Word" is DIFFERENT..its only the word that is the same..not the ENTITY. Thus WAHEGURU cannot be the God the father who had a God the Son...so in what way are are saying we all worship the SAME GOD ??
WAHEGURU Never demanded any sacrifice of any sheep/cows/corn/son..as the GOD of ABRAHAM certianly DID...WAHEGURU never set forth a Covenant with anybody/any race syaing you are MY OWN RACE..The God of Abraham did that !!
Its time we Sikhs got things right....its fundamentally faulty to keep on insisting that .."ALL" religions teach the same...all religions ..all prophets...are from the same GOD etc. There are fundamental differences - although there is just ONE "GOD" ..He is perceived DIFFERENTLY by the different religions and he does things differently for his followers.....and since the religious books and traditions have already codified Him as they see fit...and are even stamping "COPYRIGHT" on that...it looks bleak that we can unify all religions ??? 500 years after Guru nanak ji..there are more than One Billion Muslims and One billion hindus....each of these is following his own version of "God"...am i being overly pessimistic ??:happy:
Here is the link to the news about Malaysian law on Allah..http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...langor-bans-indonesian-song-containing-allah-

 

[BhagatSingh]

i thought that last bit of your post had to do with my post. but I did not really understand it, please clarify from here: it looks bleak ...

 

[spnadmin]

Dear All,
The basic problem that we all face is "terminology".
There is GOD..and there is "God..the father-God the Son God the Holy Ghost"....then there is God - the Allah ( Incidentally by a recently passed Law..we NON-Muslims in Malaysia cannot use the word A***H in any writing/poll/newspaper/publishing materials/etc etc among a few other "muslim" words !!..or we will be dragged to court -)..and various other usages of the same WORD.
But we forget or take for granted that the PERSONALITY behind the "Same Word" is DIFFERENT..its only the word that is the same..not the ENTITY. Thus WAHEGURU cannot be the God the father who had a God the Son...so in what way are are saying we all worship the SAME GOD ??
WAHEGURU Never demanded any sacrifice of any sheep/cows/corn/son..as the GOD of ABRAHAM certianly DID...WAHEGURU never set forth a Covenant with anybody/any race syaing you are MY OWN RACE..The God of Abraham did that !!
Its time we Sikhs got things right....its fundamentally faulty to keep on insisting that .."ALL" religions teach the same...all religions ..all prophets...are from the same GOD etc. There are fundamental differences - although there is just ONE "GOD" ..He is perceived DIFFERENTLY by the different religions and he does things differently for his followers.....and since the religious books and traditions have already codified Him as they see fit...and are even stamping "COPYRIGHT" on that...it looks bleak that we can unify all religions ??? 500 years after Guru nanak ji..there are more than One Billion Muslims and One billion hindus....each of these is following his own version of "God"...am i being overly pessimistic ??:happy:
Here is the link to the news about Malaysian law on Allah..Selangor bans Indonesian song containing 'Allah'

:happy::welcome::yes: