I wonder if I am arrogant. I am a Sikh partly because I believe Sikhi has more of the truth than other religions. If I didn't Sikhi is the best, I wouldn't be a Sikh; I would go be something else.
What's Wrong With God?
- Thread starter Ishna
- Start date
- Replies 83
- Reads 10K
I wonder if I am arrogant. I am a Sikh partly because I believe Sikhi has more of the truth than other religions. If I didn't believe Sikhi is the best, I wouldn't be a Sikh; I would go be something else.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
sorry im confused, I too never studied Islam, but a quick cursory glance at the Koran and what Muslims expect from their faith reveals quite clearly that Allah has quite different qualities to Waheguru, so it is quite easy to formulate an opinion on such, if you have never Islam, what exactly qualifies you to make the statement you have made, other than it is just your opinion?
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
sorry im confused, I too never studied Islam, but a quick cursory glance at the Koran and what Muslims expect from their faith reveals quite clearly that Allah has quite different qualities to Waheguru, so it is quite easy to formulate an opinion on such, if you have never Islam, what exactly qualifies you to make the statement you have made, other than it is just your opinion?
- Sep 22, 2018
- 288
- 66
- 26
i think its just diffferent names....
Guru Sahib says if you want to find Akaal purakh.... look inside yourself....
Same thing Gurus says about ALLAH to Muslims......
there cant be different gods in diff. people.......
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
I refer to my earlier post about looking for the buried trophy but finding diamonds instead.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
ah but the Gurus were not Muslim prophets, surely its what Mohammed said that is relevant to the Muslims, not what Sikh Gurus said, we are looking it from the Muslim perspective, not the Sikh
- Sep 22, 2018
- 288
- 66
- 26
Im a SIKH and Im just telling you my perspective, i think ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same and they are just different names.....
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
oh ok, sorry, I was expecting opinions based on fact or research rather than personal perspective, well, in that case, I think that the tooth fairy and Waheguru are also the same!
- Sep 22, 2018
- 288
- 66
- 26
then why does guru sahib tells Qazi to "Find ALLAH in yourself"
Last edited:
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
I would imagine it was for Muslims of the time to accept Waheguru or see Allah as different to the accepted notion, whats your point?
- Sep 22, 2018
- 288
- 66
- 26
my point is that they said same things to people of different religions, just used a different name..... i think they too felt the same bliss when someone praised ALLAH in front of gurus.
SIkhi and ISLAM may be different..... BUT ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same for me.... JUST NAMES, imo
SIkhi and ISLAM may be different..... BUT ALLAH and WAHEGURU are same for me.... JUST NAMES, imo
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
well it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it makes no sense to me
according to wikki
The first sura of the Quran is repeated in daily prayers and in other occasions. This sura, which consists of seven verses, is the most often recited sura of the Quran:[1]
Praised be God, Lord of the Universe, the Beneficent, the Merciful and Master of the Day of Judgment, You alone We do worship and from You alone we do seek assistance, guide us to the right path, the path of those to whom You have granted blessings, those who are neither subject to Your anger nor have gone astray."[68]
To my knowledge, Waheguru has no anger, perhaps you can help me out here as your making no sense whatsoever
- Sep 22, 2018
- 288
- 66
- 26
XD, give me time, ill be back with some sense in my answer.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
Im a Sikh because its the only religion that would have me....
Did you try Anton LeVey's group? But that wouldn't work either because you're definitely not a hedonist.
You might try Discordianism. Take a look at their sacred text, especially if you haven't read it in a while. Principia Discordia, Principia Discordia - Page -6
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
I quite like Abraxas personally..
Cthulu!
Really, though, do check out Principia Discordia.
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
[Also an aside...]
The Stoics back in Greece and Rome 2000 years ago left some interesting writing. In it they often used the name 'Zeus' interchangeably with "the Whole", "the One", "universal reason", "world-soul", "Nature", "Providence" and "Logos". They used the name 'Zeus', but not usually to mean the Zeus-character. They used it for something even greater than that. An impersonal God.
From https://www.iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/
"The first sense of the definition [of "Nature"] is living in accordance with nature as a whole, i.e. the entire cosmos. Cosmic nature (the universe), the Stoics firmly believed, is a rationally organized and well-ordered system, and indeed coextensive with the will of Zeus, the impersonal god. Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics' metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate. Thus at this level, "living in agreement with nature" means conforming one’s will with the sequence of events that are fated to occur in the rationally constituted universe, as providentially willed by Zeus."
So there is a precedent for using a god-name to mean something other than the god-character.
Incidentally, the classic Stoics also had a bit to say about the positive existence of other gods (including the god-character Zeus), their place within nature and their subservience as tools of Providence. But their focus was always on living in agreement with Nature, i.e. the will of the impersonal Zeus.
If anyone wants to know more about this idea of God which I personally think is very much similar to the idea put forward in Gurbani, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcription here The Stoic God – Episode 3
[/aside]
The Stoics back in Greece and Rome 2000 years ago left some interesting writing. In it they often used the name 'Zeus' interchangeably with "the Whole", "the One", "universal reason", "world-soul", "Nature", "Providence" and "Logos". They used the name 'Zeus', but not usually to mean the Zeus-character. They used it for something even greater than that. An impersonal God.
From https://www.iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/
"The first sense of the definition [of "Nature"] is living in accordance with nature as a whole, i.e. the entire cosmos. Cosmic nature (the universe), the Stoics firmly believed, is a rationally organized and well-ordered system, and indeed coextensive with the will of Zeus, the impersonal god. Consequently, all events that occur within the universe fit within a coherent, well-structured scheme that is providential. Since there is no room for chance within this rationally ordered system, the Stoics' metaphysical determinism further dictated that this cosmic Nature is identical to fate. Thus at this level, "living in agreement with nature" means conforming one’s will with the sequence of events that are fated to occur in the rationally constituted universe, as providentially willed by Zeus."
Incidentally, the classic Stoics also had a bit to say about the positive existence of other gods (including the god-character Zeus), their place within nature and their subservience as tools of Providence. But their focus was always on living in agreement with Nature, i.e. the will of the impersonal Zeus.
If anyone wants to know more about this idea of God which I personally think is very much similar to the idea put forward in Gurbani, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcription here The Stoic God – Episode 3
[/aside]
Nanak blessed us with the gyan of who God is and now we have to apply it and discover it ourselves.
Hes Truth, and so are we, drops In the ocean.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
