Test Of Faith

[S|kH]

First, I would like to warmly greet everyone again. It's been a while since I've stopped by here. This was always a fun forum when it first started up =).

Now to the topic of discussion :

Why is that religious believers define things as a "test of faith" regardless of all the hard evidence placed in front of them? You see this in every religion about multiple topics. Christianity with creationism, regardless of how much evolutionary evidence we show them, they continually believe that its just a "test of faith".

Sikhs see the same things with regards to their religion. Karma, Re-incarnation, God-like creation, 5 K's. With all the evidence we place to them, the responses you get are "this is just kalyjug, its a test of faith".

Sikhs often see people as dumb, or weak, when they choose to lose their faith for the terms of evidence placed in front of them. I've met a few sikhs who were along the lines of "if you do not practice the faith you were raised in, or doubt it, your just a weak person." Now, in today's world, how does this remotely make any sense? I think its more correct to say that the Sikh who says that is the weak one, for he can not handle evidence placed in front of him in an analyzing matter.

There is no test of faith, this is what we call free will. And with free will, there is a general progression to agnosticism. So, why is it regardless of all the evidence you throw at a religious person, they believe its all a test of faith and that they must remain strict, and never "doubt"?<br /><br />
----------------------------------------<br />

----------------------------------------<br />

Jesus, what did you guys do to this place with all these adds >_<

 

[Sinister]

"Sikhs often see people as dumb, or weak, when they choose to lose their faith for the terms of evidence placed in front of them. I've met a few sikhs who were along the lines of "if you do not practice the faith you were raised in, or doubt it, your just a weak person." Now, in today's world, how does this remotely make any sense?"
-SIKH

I could not have said the same words with any more precision as you just did in that paragraph.

I largely agree that this is occuring. A neo-conservative force is persistant in our faith and it has sadly grown to being the dominant force in an age of "enlightenment" (if you want to call it that: another debate on it own).

From observation I beleive that a large amount of sikhs have adopted a practice of pseudo-islam. This might have been the reprocussion of English raj/ hindu raj....1984 or other events where the Sikhs try to distinguish themselves from Hindu majority. (another debate on its own)
evidence: this conservatism is even stronger overseas where enchantment is less! Wherever a group needs to establish a separate identity they will usually adopt polarizing extremes to prove their "separateness".

Some elements have become, pseudo-Islamic: where "submission" (to God or "authority") is the dominant, rightful and just practice. This practice condemns the questioning of ones faith and considers it heresy. People who do question are labelled as "egoists" (egotistical). People who take the faith literally and not in context with its historical, social and psychological environments are usually the ones performing the labelling.
These individuals sometimes fail to recognize the context of the environment in which our Guru's preached thus become infatuated with "deification" of particular characters in history. When something is Dieified it becomes more stringeant to critique and analyze and sadly the faith loses out. Usually people attach strong emotion to a deified object or element thus will not tolerate disscussion but promote "submission".
Sikhism has transformed from a religion that questions and challenges dominant voices in society to a relgion that "submits".

The bottom line:
Religion should not add: "insult to reason"
This is the only way we can make our faith stronger. Deification may strengthen and unify a faith temporarily by installing feelings of "Bravado" but discredits and debases a faith in the long term.

I speak from personal experience on discourses with others on this forum and and others.
PS: Sikhphilosophy is one of the most progressive liberal sites I have posted on.
More input on this topic from fellow members would be great!

-Regards,
Sinister

also,

Logically, agnosticism is the most "un-egotistical" position a person can take in life.
what statement can be said with more humility than the socratic statement; "the only thing I know is that I know nothing"?

 

[simpy]

Respected Saadh Sangat Ji,

Well, Sikh phylosophy is entirely based on the existance of God. Naam Simran is God's Seva.

Gurbani teaches the existance of God, starting the very first page, and no he/she has a claim on that truth.

it also tells that jin saveayaa tin payeeaa maan

so you have to be a believer in the Existance of God, to accept that truth. and to experience that reality you have to believe in Him.

until the question about His existance lurking in your minds, is resolved, you cannot experience it. And to experience it you have to get out of this Ego. And Ego cannot be resolved until you believe in Him, you don't come under His Will.

No faith can be imposed on anybody, neither it can be highjacked. when it is going to happen-all your debates dhariaan dharriaan reh janeeaa ne.

forgive me please

 

[S|kH]

Sinister,

Wow, you are spot on.
You have a very interesting analysis, and in another time I will definetly wish to discuss the matters you highlighted above as a "another debate on its own"

I have some interesting opinions on those topics, which slightly differ from what your saying. Otherwise, definetly an interesting viewpoint you have =)

 

[spnadmin]

Sinister ji

It took 4 hours on Saturday, but I did put together a detailed reaction to issues you have raised. Somehow in the web site migration problems my reaction was lost. It can be reposted later if you are still interested in pursuing the topic.

By the way, character assassination is defined on Answers.com as

"A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure's reputation."

So character assassination isn't benign and it is hard to see how a forum member's reputation could be destroyed or damaged by statements like "masalla talk" because we are all using forum identities and most profiles reveal nothing about the member. Aand how is being accused of "masalla talk" destructive or damaging? Anyway, expressions of strong opinion are always going to bother someone.

I love your energy and your pursuit of debate.

Most respectfully