Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SThe Church Act 1939 i suppose i may be wrong (in the year) provides land under the name of the catholic Church
I understand all Christians aren’t Catholics but Catholics are Christians and in my original statement I made it clear that I’m talking about them
Even in old case files pre independence you’ll find the Roman catholic Church being the caseholder or defendant which is headed by the pope and was backed by the British government
Just to be clear the catholic Church holds the most land compared to other denominations mostly due to the land being pre independence and awarded by the British government under directions of the Roman catholic Church
Hence the name is taken I’m not insignifying or defaming other denominations if that was what u meantSThe earliest traces of Indus valley civilization are dated 7000 BCEBCE: before christ?
7000 years before christ so there is no way Christians muslims or Jews were the inhabitants of this landSThank you mam, kill them with your kindness they say 🗣️🗣️>Minorities are lucky that Hindu people don’t treat them the way that we are treated in other countries. Smh
Agreed we don’t wanna end up like lebanon
SMy brother in Christ you so far have not been able to counter one point just saying words like ignorance misinformation doesn’t constitute anything g mein dam h counter any point I said and tell me it’s a lie.>Where is the proof? What proof is there that this land was sanatan or Hindu? Accept the fact that this is a culturally diverse space.
Already quoted it with the rigveda and it’s widely accepted by even ‘real christians’ and historians
>Accept the fact that this is a culturally diverse space.
It is a culturally diverse country but saying that the original habitants weren’t hindus is just utter bs
SOh yea? Tell that to the OP I only answered his questioncan’t counter with points so term it as hate lmao great job mr. dzousa or Daniel or Austin whatever u named yourself
SI know sects existI know about protestants Catholics their differences origins everything very well
The organisation that owns land in India under christianity comes under the Roman catholic Church hence in India it’s called the catholic Church nothing else
SDid they occupy that land like waqf or did they get it as donations from Britishers like the church?Temples also pay taxes and are controlled by the government
Do enlighten me on how similar that is to waqf and the catholic Church?
Government enforces stringent control on these temples unlike waqf. Are they independent? No
SDo not tell me you think India was originally inhabited by people not hindus ☠️Even romila thapar and irfan Habib would feel shy hearing your thoughts
Rigveda is older than abrahmic religions and it’s widely accepted i don’t mean to demean any religion in any way but it’s enough proof that Hindus inhabited this land
I’m the one with a bias? 😭 The original question was whether such things exist in other religions and i answered with the catholic Church and not once have u countered the points instead repeating the same thing over and over
S>How valid is this dawg? And again Catholics? Bruh 🤦🏾♂️i mean it’s a christian website and i think you’ve misunderstood what I meant by catholic Church in not targetting Catholics or protestants or anyone
The catholic Church is the landowner hence their name is being taken
Similar to how the Roman catholic Church operates
>Anyways since you drew a parallel, how much land/ etc was given to the Hindus, keeping aside the Babri ram mandir stuff aart?
Hindus or sanatanis are the original inhabitants of this land wdym how much land were they given? The entire land is culturally theirs they aren’t to be given anything and there is no similar parallel to waqf board or the catholic Church in Hinduism
Unless you mean a specific dispute like ram mandir
Where ASI already proved that ram mandir did indeed exist before the masjid so it’s hindu land too
But either way muslims were compensated with land for a mosque in AyodhyaWhich on a side note has majority of its donations coming from hindus and not muslims
SI didn’t know indiancatholicmatters.org is run by chatgpt bro mb dawg 😔>please tell me what was donated to my brothers who are involved with temples and compare them with “Catholics”
Would u mind rephrasing it enough to make it make sense
SThe Church act was established in 1927 by the British government and land was donated to them by the British government and also leased by the British governmentMost of the land they have is dated pre independence
>What are you even talking?
The catholic Church body
>What’s similar?
At the end both got land that’s not rightfully theirs
Waqf just did it because of congress post independence
Church didn’t steal land but they got it by the British government for free and got leased properties at peanuts
Read Saldhana and ORS vs The roman Catholic Church (it was backed by the British government as the case is dated to British India)
So many properties for inflation adjusted at around 13k rupees if I’m not wrong
13k rupees for whole buildings is peanuts
The only reason catholic Church doesn’t have too much action against It is it’s not governed by a single act the most government can do it is take the properties to court
SOh yea leased by whom? The British. For what purpose? Propagating christianity and they leased the land for peanuts lmaoand alot of the land is also donations? From whom? No surprise the British government.
I know there are different sects the name itself says ‘catholic’
So let’s not act like the church did smart business and acquired all this land
And i mentioned it already that unlike waqf the church couldn’t claim stake in any land they wanted
But they got free land so while the process might be different the end result of both is quite similar
