Alia Bhatt's New Bridal Wear Ad Sparks Controversy - Page 24

Originally posted by: blue-ice.1

First its the father's home...and then its the husband's home......where is MY home??🤔

That’s addressed to a bride, so obviously the groom would be the reference.

Don’t miss the beautiful message there, specially about the importance of education for women.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Actually, Draupadi was asking why Yudhishtira had any rights over her if he lost himself? Could be actual physical question or philosophical question.

In fact, Bheeshma's response to her was, "yes, wives are husband's property." (Paraphrasing, but gist is correct)

Dyuta Parva (Critical Edition, BORI, 280 (55))

everyone was

extremely miserable on seeing Krishna thus dragged into the sabha. Bhishma said, “O

fortunate one! Since the ways of dharma are subtle, I cannot properly resolve the question

you have posed. One without property cannot stake the property of others. But women are

always the property of their husbands.

She never asked about the younger Pandavas. At all. She never even asked for them to be freed with her 1st boon when she didn't even know there would be a 2nd boon. Dhritharashtra then gave her the 2nd boon.

There are no examples which go the other way nice as it would be think this was all about relationships.

BTW, Yudhishthira was also the husband who asked Panchali to keep Keechaka happy until the exile got over. You get the gist. No matter how powerful the woman, the finance minister of the empire, she was still treated like that.

There was a whole devasura war on the pretext of Tara's adultery

Tara had to go back to Dev Guru.. wasn’t that all..

The person who got unfairly punished was Buddh.

Originally posted by: monu_tan

That’s addressed to a bride, so obviously the groom would be the reference.

Don’t miss the beautiful message there, specially about the importance of education for women.

🤣

Do you mean to be sarcastic or was that unintentionally funny 🤣

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Tara had to go back to Dev Guru.. wasn’t that all..

The person who got unfairly punished was Buddh.

Our texts are full of metaphors and symbolisms. To get what they were trying to say and in turn get benefited from it, we need to attempt to dig deeper than just be constrained by the peripheral meaning. Most of the Puranas are mere interpretations and folklore presented for the easier understanding of the actual concept.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

😆 Show me one quote where I said women aren't regarded as property in Christianity. You can't. In fact, I said the opposite.

But you took A and presented it as B.

And neatly avoided mentioning the books.

I just pointed it out

Nope, Jesus said he came to uphold the law (of God) and summarized it in 2 sentences. 😆

Before you claim something else, I call Krishna the feminist deity too. With one notable exception, he was 100% supportive of women's rights. His followers, not so much. The same for Christ

Did I say "you"? I said "we", I was having a discussion with Softness before you interjected and started making assumptions on what was being said. It would be better if you read what is being said carefully before you jump in and make unfounded baseless assumptions.

Softee claimed that women aren't regarded as property in Islam and Christianity, I provide quotes from the Quran that disproves this.

S(he).then claims that I didn't proved quotes from the Bible, in response I provide quotes. Then you come along and claim that these aren't from gospels and that I'm trying to pull a "fast one" by deceptively passing off these quotes as if they're from the gospels lmao, which is not what s(he) asked!

So person asked A, I present A, then you come running along claiming that I'm passing A off as B.😆

You're wrong once again. Jesus never rejected the Old Testament, no where does he criticise/denounce/rejects the Old Testament, I mean he could've told his followers not to accept it, but he didn't. In fact, I think it is from Matthew where he specifically states he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets! It's pretty clear, he was Jewish himself, he never invented a religion, that was done by his followers, he lived as a Jew, and died as one.

I think just like the Jews have Orthodox, Conservative & Reformist branches, based on how much of their ancient religion should be preserved and how much allowed to progress with the times; likewise we need to classify Hindus as well. I didn't expect this thread would run so long! 😃

Originally posted by: cutejodikangal

Our texts are full of metaphors and symbolisms. To get what they were trying to say and in turn get benefited from it, we need to attempt to dig deeper than just be constrained by the peripheral meaning. Most of the Puranas are mere interpretations and folklore presented for the easier understanding of the actual concept.

Well, all I get is Buddh and Brihaspathi don't get along. So the combination ain't good in a chart

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_

Did I say "you"? I said "we", I was having a discussion with Softness before you interjected and started making assumptions on what was being said. It would be better if you read what is being said carefully before you jump in and make unfounded baseless assumptions.

Softee claimed that women aren't regarded as property in Islam and Christianity, I provide quotes from the Quran that disproves this.

S(he).then claims that I didn't proved quotes from the Bible, in response I provide quotes. Then you come along and claim that these aren't from gospels and that I'm trying to pull a "fast one" by deceptively passing off these quotes as if they're from the gospels lmao, which is not what s(he) asked!

So person asked A, I present A, then you come running along claiming that I'm passing A off as B.😆

You're wrong once again. Jesus never rejected the Old Testament, no where does he criticise/denounce/rejects the Old Testament, I mean he could've told his followers not to accept it, but he didn't. In fact, I think it is from Matthew where he specifically states he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets! It's pretty clear, he was Jewish himself, he never invented a religion, that was done by his followers, he lived as a Jew, and died as one.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you said I claimed there was no ill treatment of women in Christianity.

Nope. Jesus said he came to uphold the law, which he summarized as love God and love your fellow man. And he explicitly said there is no diff between man and woman in the eye of God. His interactions with women regarded as impure is beautiful to read.

Law on interacting with impure women is pretty clear in Jewish law. He stopped it from happening. So there you go. Opposition.

Opposition to Sabbath laws.

Opposition to dietary laws.

I don't particularly want to post this here, but you keep claiming something patently wrong, so forced to.

Mathew 23, 13:31

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [3]15

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.16

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'17

You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?18

You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'19

You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?20

Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.21

And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.22

And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.23

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.24

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.25

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.26

Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.27

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.28

In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.29

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.30

And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'31

So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.32

Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!33

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?34

-----

Yeah, Jesus did live and die as a Jew. His followers didn't start Christianity, either. That started as a sect of Judaism. Emperor Constantine did that.

And @H as for your claim about Jesus never repudiation Jewish law.

John 8, 1 to 11

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Every supporter of patriarchy is out here to derail the discussion and make it into something it was not.

Every religion around the world has treated women as property. Even the ones which started with patently feminist deities. Be it Hinduism with Krishna. Or Christianity with Christ.

But of course, that statement won't do. Women demanding rights cannot be tolerated. So we make it a holy war. The loser in this is 50% of humanity.