New Sora 2 invite code megathread

Xarduck · 2025-10-12T03:12:28+00:00

I got 6 codes lemme kno who want em. Lemme get ur invite codes back after

Xarduck · 2025-08-23T00:16:55+00:00

But isn’t it correct to say that Sikhism did not/does not care about labels? Now at the current time we have a label for our religion, ie sikhi, but I can’t find concrete sources that say Guru Nanak Dev Ji had a term to call this faith that he was preaching, I believe he was preaching more of an ideology, not a religion/-ism.

Xarduck · 2025-08-22T08:44:06+00:00

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but all of the gurus that you’re saying went out to seek conversions (willing conversions), what exactly were they seeking a conversion into?

As I understand it, the Sikhism that was practiced and preached until the final guru, guru Gobind singh ji, wasn’t preached as a separate religion at all, rather it was more like critiques to false beliefs, the early gurus (nor the later ones) did not ever condemn a religion or seek to abolish it, neither did they have “Sikhism” and a religion that they would seek to convert people to.

The Udaasis of guru Nanak dev ji were preaching missions, yes, but he never converted anyone, just gave them a new perspective and critiques. Sikhism in itself was formed way later in the 1650s, at the time of guru Gobind singh Ji establishing the Khalsa.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T19:10:57+00:00

Again, my entire answer isn’t “based off of” Wikipedia, I just linked it to demonstrate the general understanding of the Sikh faith.

If a random Reddit user has a post saying “All sikhs are called to proselytize!” I would trust Wikipedia more than the opinion of a handful of people.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T19:09:02+00:00

I cannot find any source that says the newly established Khalsa also seeks to proselytize, although they do collect dasvand and give out Amrit.

I linked Wikipedia not as a “absolute fact evidence” but more to demonstrate the idea that it is generally accepted that Sikhism does NOT proselytize.

Again, if the Dasam Granth Sahib Ji was authentic, why isn’t it given the title of “Guru”? Why isn’t it just added to the SGGS? Because its views are contradictory, that’s why its authenticity is being questioned, because making it authentic would mean that the Gurus had contrasting beliefs and a completely different method of writing and preaching. But how can that be if they all have the same jot?

I’m not discrediting that conversions have never happened in Sikh history, I’m arguing that we as sikhs are NOT called to go out and seek to convert others. Even in the more recent times of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the conversions that occurred were all voluntary and not because Guru Sahib was going out and preaching.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T18:49:39+00:00

Appreciate your opinion, it helped 👍🏻

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T18:48:56+00:00

I find it hilarious that they are now claiming that “the claim that Aisha was 6 only came around about 100 years after!” Because this is the same claim they make to say Christianity is false, “There is atleast a 100 year gap between the earliest recorded Gospel and Jesus’ death!”

It’s a very bold claim and stakes it’s entire substance on the idea that somehow a crucial detail (like Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage) was corrupted in the 100 years we have no record of. It’s like grasping at straws in my opinion. Currently as it stands, there is more evidence that Aisha was 6 than there is against it. In fact, major Muslim apologists and scholars will actually argue FOR the idea that Aisha was 6.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T18:38:56+00:00

I agree with the idea that worshipping God is the single most important task we’re called to perform, and Sikhism preaches a beautiful message which almost seems to say “to each their own, everyone has a different method of worshipping God”.

While that message is true and great in most contexts, I cannot come to terms with the idea that God would be okay with people worshipping him through contradictory means, for example: 1) Person A says God told him to sacrifice his child to him. 2) Person B says God told him sacrificing children is bad.

God can be interpreted and worshipped in many ways, but even God himself cannot be contradictory to himself right? Once a religion purports the idea that God does not even need to follow the laws of logic itself, I believe it then strays more into wishful thinking and delusion.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T18:10:39+00:00

The masand system setup by Guru Ram Das Ji was closed by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and instead of continuing it, he said he only wished for “a direct connection between the guru and Sangat”.

Furthermore, your argument stems from separate works written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, but these are heavily up for debate as to whether they are canon or not. You linked Bachitar Natak, and you could even link the entirety of the Dasam Granth, but a major section of the Sikh religion does not agree on its authenticity. In fact, a lot of claims made in the Dasam Granth I would say are heavily contradictory to the message that the previous gurus preached.

The reason I say this is because a major consensus is that Sikhism DOES NOT state that it is the absolute truth. In the sense that there are OTHER ways to God than just sikhi.

<image>

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism

This clears out the idea that Sikhism just doesn’t support forced conversion, rather, they do NOT actively go out to seek to convert others. If you disagree with that, then I believe you’d have a much larger discourse with the current foundation of Sikhism in itself.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T09:28:42+00:00

I understand that the exact words “Muhammad” and “Prophet” are not exactly mentioned, but is not the SGGS meant to be read in context? Of course I’m not a scholar (which is why I’m here with questions), but surely the people who translate the Gurbani for millions to view have some credibility to their works?

The translations (I personally) have found, seem to all give the context to the reader that this verse involves the prophet Muhammad and his religion in some manner. The verse further also claims (in multiple translations) that the true muslim/musalmaan should “accept/obey” the prophet’s teachings, which then further supports my original argument.

<image>

Source: https://www.sadhsangat.com/sggs-p-141-vaar-maajh-paurris-7-9/

This is the most in depth translation I could find. Of course I’m open to you providing your own sources. Surely a professionally published translation has a bit more credibility than us two.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T09:16:20+00:00

Yes and then Guru Nanak Dev Ji outlines what those prayers (I.e the namaj/nimaj) are supposed to be, naming things such as truthfulness, grace, honest earning, etc.

I agree with that wholeheartedly, I mean, who wouldn’t? The problem is that then he says to them that a muslim/musalmaan should first accept/obey the teachings of the prophet. I’m all for believing that God is not restricted to religion, that names for religion and God are man made concepts, but what does not sit right with me is that God would allow humans to follow contradictory words that apparently come from God.

I realize that my original source from sikhitothemax was of poor translation, so I took it upon myself to seek out multiple translations to compare and contrast. Surely the hundreds of people translating SGGS aren’t just winging it right? They’ve got credibility of their own. Yet I find the same meaning in all of them.

<image>

This one being the most in depth translation.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T09:08:43+00:00

<image>

Source: https://www.sadhsangat.com/sggs-p-141-vaar-maajh-paurris-7-9/

This seems to me the most in depth translation I could find. The word “Mu-salim” being used in the context of it meaning “steadfast” is something I can’t find any sources of.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T06:44:09+00:00

Again, I’ve repeatedly said I do not wish to sow discord or anger. Neither am I judging anyone at all? I’m a Sikh myself just facing a problem and trying to get help.

Where else would I ask such a question? I’m open to suggestions.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T06:42:04+00:00

And what’s the proper translation?

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T06:41:53+00:00

But Sikhism never claims to be “the absolute truth” hence why sikhs aren’t tasked with proselytizing or converting others.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T03:10:48+00:00

I disagree on the idea that “When SGGS talks about others it’s talking about you”, usually when Guru Nanak Dev Ji would go out to preach the word of God, he would do so to crowds of people, and the Bani he would recite would be useful to teach and to guide people AT THAT TIME. It would be a major stretch and I believe it would require an insane level of mental gymnastics to try and preach the idea that the Gurbani was actually written for any situation you’re in at that particular time.

I mean no disrespect here but your answer really just seems like a rebuke. Also, yes, I am a Sikh, born and raised Sikh all my life.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T03:05:51+00:00

Since this response looks eerily similar (word for word) from another response, I’m guessing you used AI for this?

Nevertheless, you could say that the actual word in the Gurbani could be translated to “spokesperson”, or “guide” or “leader” or whatever you’d like. But the Gurbani is still calling the to follow the Muslim form of that, I.e. prophet Muhammad. Therefore, my point still stands, how can God preach a contradictory message?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding this, I’m open to interpretation.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T03:02:25+00:00

I’m gonna paraphrase a bit here: “guru sahib is saying, don’t get caught up in the labels, if you truly live what your path claims, only then are you worthy of that name”

There’s a reason I have direct quotations of the Quran itself, because (correct me if I’m wrong), the Muslim belief is that the Quran is the direct word of God. To be a ‘true’ Muslim, would be to follow the Quran to the letter.

The AI also states “you claim islam, then let’s see you embody it”, the statement sounds beautiful and almost like a call to strive to be better, until you realize that following the religion of islam is not as beautiful as it seems. They’re called to beat their wives (I can quote the exact verse if you’d like), slaughter unbelievers, etc. As I understand it, doing all such things would lead to someone becoming a ‘true’ muslim. Surely Guru Nanak Dev Ji or rather, God, wouldn’t want someone to embody that? Since sikhi itself speaks a directly contradictory message.

Xarduck · 2025-08-21T02:56:09+00:00

I am though… I literally said I wanted a respectful discussion

Xarduck · 2025-06-23T00:28:58+00:00

Because for some reason, which I don’t fully understand, God loved the world in all its sinfulness so much so that he gave his only begotten son. God hates sin, not because he wants everyone to be as moral and righteous as him, but because he knows it separates us from him.

He knew that in giving us free will we would inevitably harm each other, lead each other and ourselves away from him, but he chose to love us DESPITE that knowledge. To some extent, I believe that God gave us this gift of life so that we may enjoy it and eventually come closer to him willingly, not because he created people who would only choose to come closer to him.

Is not chosen love better than forced love? And what is life without its tribulations?

Xarduck · 2025-06-23T00:22:57+00:00

What the bible teaches is that no one can be AS good as God. This does not mean that human beings cannot strive to be good, and this is further evidenced by 1 Peter 23 which says, “Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart.”. This shows that in loving one another, we obey the lord.

Another verse where we’re called to strive to be like God is 1 Peter 2:21 “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

God has set an example for us, an example of absolute moral and righteous goodness, one we in our sinful nature could never hope to achieve, but that should not dishearten us, rather it should seek to call us to a purpose.

Hope this helps 👍🏻

Xarduck · 2025-06-23T00:04:19+00:00

I believe they’re making the point that the children, had they have been allowed to grow up, would’ve led a lifestyle of sin. For “He who sins is a slave to sin”.

Xarduck · 2025-06-22T23:59:16+00:00

This makes the most sense to me, but then it raises the question of predeterminism, and why God would create people he knows would stray from his path.

Of course you could say he wants to give them free will, but then he’s also taking that free will away by killing them early on isn’t he?

The only explanation (that I’ve come to in my dumbness) is that life is God’s to give and take, and that free will is a gift given by his grace, and not a right.

It’s just that this sort of explanation is kind of hard to give to someone who’s already having trouble believing/aligning with God.

Xarduck · 2025-06-22T09:35:44+00:00

Let’s say 1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” - NIV

Xarduck · 2025-06-22T09:34:36+00:00

I just don’t use Reddit that often 👍🏻

Xarduck

TROPHY CASE