At Freshkidavid
By which god do you accept Salvation? Christ in everything we do (CIEWD). And it's okay to use Christ because it's a Greek word from way back in the Disciple's day that means the same as Messiah, or at least has come to mean that now if it didn't fully then.

You are wrong. Look throughout U.S. history. We have always had two choices. One choice was for the side who's ideology was and still is fundamentally antithesis to the foundations of our nation. The other choice was for the side that believed in the fundamental basis for this nation and its principles. One side has tended towards things that are wrong in God's eyes, such as treating certain people badly, cheating the poor, lying to the people, murder of the inconvenient innocent, a more loose self-serving interpretation of the Constitution.

Today, it's become obvious. To vote Democrat is to vote for every policy that goes up against Christ from acceptance of homosexuality to the murder of the most vulnerable, the unborn, to forcing the children of God to obey the state over God, to teaching our kids that they evolved from apes, that God is unnecessary, teaching them about sex at an early age, stealing from the most poor and vulnerable their right to self-defense and security in their home, to the removal of Christian symbology and scriptures from the public eye, to forbidding prayer in public, to the coercion of Christians to remain silent in their places of business or public authority, to the coercion of clergy themselves to remain silent about politics, unless of course their politics agrees with the Democrats.

There is one place where the left wing tries to say that Democrats are more like Christ, and that's in their redistribution of the wealth. They think that because Democrats like to increase taxes rapidly and like to throw more money into welfare that it means they are helping and more Christ-like. That could be the case, except that Democrat don't actually help anyone. They use that money to create a state of dependency in vulnerable and poor people in order to ensure generational loyalty. It's the kind of dependence that not only requires that people remain lazy, but also fosters this hatred against anyone that they can be told will try and take it all away. They never actually help these people though because things keep getting worse. The flow of money in this sort of system keeps them and their political allies rich and politically powerful while the people they "help" live virtually destitute, often unable to even work for fear of losing what they're getting given to them. Then people get lazy when they accept that sort of lifestyle, which helps Democrats again because then people start becoming angry that they can't get anywhere in life, which makes it easy for them to be told that it's someone else's fault.

And as it just so happens, these Democrats are the same exact side that thinks government should have the right to control every aspect of the economy, every aspect of our nation's wealth, how individuals are allowed to live their lives, what is right or wrong regarding religion and God, and how to raise our children. They also believe that nobody should have the right to properly defend themselves and want to remove all guns from the nation, save those that protect them and their families of course. And of course, they'll never take guns away from the organized criminal elements of society. So only criminals and government will be able to properly defend themselves if Democrats had their way. Note, they think that you must always spare the rod when disciplining your children, and they make laws to force you to comply or risk losing your children forever.

This is why you are wrong. If Hillary wins, then all you said about the U.S. losing its place is plausible because the nation will fall further into the rejection of Jesus Christ just as the Democrats have been pushing for. If Trump wins, it won't happen like that. In fact, if Trump wins, it may very well be a blessing to Africa. We on the right wing, at least we voters anyway, we have no problems with Africa industrializing. We would not support African nations intentionally devaluing their money. Personally, I would prefer it if African nations like Nigeria were to rise up to become like world powers, but only if they reject their Islamic sects and embrace Christ Jesus. You look through the Islamic world, and the people are never at peace there. They are always fighting, usually with themselves, but also with all of the nations around them. They allow these horrific murderous extremist sects pop up everywhere and cause oppression upon everyone they come into contact with.

Africa doesn't need that. The rest of the world doesn't need more of that. Africa already has enough of that with their corrupt government stealing from them and roving bands of criminals who are even worse. Africa needs to advance so that the people can put down such criminals and governments need to be in fear of what their people might do if they don't serve them as they are put in power to do.

Aizenosa,

Yes, try to keep up.

We've already considered that and have moved on the next question, which is based on the fact that he must have known the way that would have sounded, which brings up the question as to why he didn't take a moment to clarify what he meant. Rather, he instead just left it at that. So, either the Pope is an idiot who can't understand simple common sense things, or he meant for it to be provocative and simply was not interested in telling us that he only mean from the human perspective.

The point is, his whole theme is one that esteems Allah as God, and Muhammad as a legitimate prophet of God. Yet he gives the aura of denigrating Christ without actually stating further to demonstrate that he meant only from a human perspective.

Also, even from a human perspective, back then Christ's life may have been regarded as a failure, but today, even from a human perspective, Christ's life cannot be seen as a failure but by a fool.

The man's life changed the course of the entire world for the better. Even by our imperfect, not understanding minds, Christ's life is not even remotely a failure.

For the Pope to say nothing further than what he said means that he's okay with exactly what he said, which means he's either mentally deficient, or he actually IS okay with what he said, regardless of how it could be construed.