☀️ 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: 21783" data-attributes="member: 1904"><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">My dear Inderjit</span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">My goodness you have actually stooped to the LOW level of derogatory name calling </span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">This is another example of an ad hominem attack & of the worst kind. Have you ever heard of manners & civility and you call yourself a guru’s Sikh? I wonder which guru would have modeled this behavior for you. Is this behavior a part of your so-called Sikh doctrine? How hypocritical can you get when you state that the purpose of Sikhism is </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">Is this how you model & reflect harmony & what a gurmukh should be? </span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It appears that you have the habit of continually committing the ad hominem fallacy:</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">I gave you a challenge and instead of trying to second guess what Jasbir Ahluwalia meant in his writings, bring him on the forum. I am sure he will say that you are MISREPRESENTING his views. BTW I have read his books and on page 47 of his book, <em>The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine</em>, he writes: </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">WOW straight from the horses mouth!!! Did you overlook something or what? How does that make you look like? It looks like YOU have not read his book and are indeed misrepresenting Ahluwalia’s doctrine. Why? Because you do not have the prerequisite foundational philosophical training and sophistication to appreciate what Ahluwalia is saying nor his paradigm! End of matter QED! Actually I need go no further as this alone debunks all your nonsense about your own manufactured so-called Sikh doctrine. It neither reflects Ahluwalia accurately nor the teachings of the SGGS. </span></strong></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You commit the classic </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">ad populum (appeal to popularity). It is always incorrect to say that something is true because it is popular – numbers do not confer wisdom; the majority has been wrong very often. You actually go beyond this by attempting to use bandwagon propaganda which is very similar, except it adds a coercive aspect where people feel intimidated into accepting something. In addition to pressuring one to believe because most people do, there is the threat of rejection by the group. This is a particularly sinister technique as it attempts to eliminate diverse points of view by intimidation e.g. “Everyone knows that Jasbir Ahluwalia’s doctrine is true, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?”</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You also commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by saying:</span></span></strong><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">An Appeal to Authority is not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). We cannot be experts about everything and so must rely upon the judgment of others. But the expert must fulfill two conditions:</span></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">1) </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">the expert is in fact an authority in a relevant area.</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">2) </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">There does not exist significant contrary belief by equally competent experts. </span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">The first is obvious but the second is often overlooked. The principle here that you are missing is that experts cancel each other out. </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Endorsing Ahluwalia because of the UN or other public offices is also fallacious.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Endorsement is a type of appeal to authority where someone puts their "stamp of approval" on an idea, candidate, or product. </span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You write:</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Once again let me quote: Ahluwlia from his book, <em>The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine </em>page10:</span></span></strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth – the pure and unblemished doctrine! Once again you are MISREPRESENTING Ahluwalia! Have you indeed read his book? Maybe it went in one ear and out the other. It looks like it is you who does not share a brain cell with Ahluwalia or true Sikhism. My dear friend, logic is a priori – you have no choice – even Ahluwalia recognizes this and declares your statement that </span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">as nonsense!</span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: green"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">You keep trying to muddy the waters by bringing up the issue of Christianity. This is the 3rd time I am requesting that if you are serious about your questions & objections start a new thread. </span></span></strong></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><strong><span style="color: green">Inderjit, if you are intellectually honest you will have to admit that you do not have a leg to stand on and all your arguments so far have been flawed. Don’t believe me - believe the quotes directly from your guru i.e. Ahluwalia. So put this matter about </span></strong> <strong><span style="color: green">to rest and start learning what true Sikh doctrine is.</span></strong><strong><span style="color: green">It is OK to make mistakes but it is not OK to wallow in them stubbornly remaining in self-defensive denial after they have been shown to be fallacious. With all respect, you need to go back to the drawing board for you have a lot of learning to do. God bless.</span></strong></span></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: 21783, member: 1904"] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]My dear Inderjit[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]My goodness you have actually stooped to the LOW level of derogatory name calling [/COLOR][/B][B][/B][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]This is another example of an ad hominem attack & of the worst kind. Have you ever heard of manners & civility and you call yourself a guru’s Sikh? I wonder which guru would have modeled this behavior for you. Is this behavior a part of your so-called Sikh doctrine? How hypocritical can you get when you state that the purpose of Sikhism is [/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/COLOR][B][COLOR=green]Is this how you model & reflect harmony & what a gurmukh should be? [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]It appears that you have the habit of continually committing the ad hominem fallacy:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][B][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]I gave you a challenge and instead of trying to second guess what Jasbir Ahluwalia meant in his writings, bring him on the forum. I am sure he will say that you are MISREPRESENTING his views. BTW I have read his books and on page 47 of his book, [I]The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine[/I], he writes: [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]WOW straight from the horses mouth!!! Did you overlook something or what? How does that make you look like? It looks like YOU have not read his book and are indeed misrepresenting Ahluwalia’s doctrine. Why? Because you do not have the prerequisite foundational philosophical training and sophistication to appreciate what Ahluwalia is saying nor his paradigm! End of matter QED! Actually I need go no further as this alone debunks all your nonsense about your own manufactured so-called Sikh doctrine. It neither reflects Ahluwalia accurately nor the teachings of the SGGS. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You commit the classic [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]ad populum (appeal to popularity). It is always incorrect to say that something is true because it is popular – numbers do not confer wisdom; the majority has been wrong very often. You actually go beyond this by attempting to use bandwagon propaganda which is very similar, except it adds a coercive aspect where people feel intimidated into accepting something. In addition to pressuring one to believe because most people do, there is the threat of rejection by the group. This is a particularly sinister technique as it attempts to eliminate diverse points of view by intimidation e.g. “Everyone knows that Jasbir Ahluwalia’s doctrine is true, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?”[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You also commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by saying:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][FONT=Times New Roman] [B][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]An Appeal to Authority is not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). We cannot be experts about everything and so must rely upon the judgment of others. But the expert must fulfill two conditions:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]1) [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]the expert is in fact an authority in a relevant area.[/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]2) [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]There does not exist significant contrary belief by equally competent experts. [/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]The first is obvious but the second is often overlooked. The principle here that you are missing is that experts cancel each other out. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Endorsing Ahluwalia because of the UN or other public offices is also fallacious.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] Endorsement is a type of appeal to authority where someone puts their "stamp of approval" on an idea, candidate, or product. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You write:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/COLOR][B][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/B] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]Once again let me quote: Ahluwlia from his book, [I]The Sovereignty of the Sikh Doctrine [/I]page10:[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman] [B][/B][/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth – the pure and unblemished doctrine! Once again you are MISREPRESENTING Ahluwalia! Have you indeed read his book? Maybe it went in one ear and out the other. It looks like it is you who does not share a brain cell with Ahluwalia or true Sikhism. My dear friend, logic is a priori – you have no choice – even Ahluwalia recognizes this and declares your statement that [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]as nonsense![/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [B][COLOR=green][FONT=Times New Roman]You keep trying to muddy the waters by bringing up the issue of Christianity. This is the 3rd time I am requesting that if you are serious about your questions & objections start a new thread. [/FONT][/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Times New Roman][B][COLOR=green]Inderjit, if you are intellectually honest you will have to admit that you do not have a leg to stand on and all your arguments so far have been flawed. Don’t believe me - believe the quotes directly from your guru i.e. Ahluwalia. So put this matter about [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=black] [/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]to rest and start learning what true Sikh doctrine is.[/COLOR][/B][B][COLOR=green]It is OK to make mistakes but it is not OK to wallow in them stubbornly remaining in self-defensive denial after they have been shown to be fallacious. With all respect, you need to go back to the drawing board for you have a lot of learning to do. God bless.[/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [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