Topic: Pope attacks Trump saying he is 'not Christian' (Read 4220 times)
Is Trump now in jeopardy of losing the nomination after Saturday? Maybe all of the attacks on Trump are starting to make a dent in his favorability.
l.Donald Trump makes the Masonic
descendent triangle sign in this early photo.
See more: http://henrymakow.com/donald_trump_is_masonic_false.html
descendent triangle sign in this early photo.
See more: http://henrymakow.com/donald_trump_is_masonic_false.html
I haven't read the book but I don't think innocent people should die just because. And no religion should be imposed onto anyone that doesn't want to practice it.
ISIS are the only true Muslims as they follow the laws as outlined in the Quran. All other Muslims cherry pick from that book.
That is true. For example, when the ISIS barbarians capture female non-Muslim civilians, only the Yazidis are kept as sex-slaves. The Christians and the Jews are let-off, as they are "people of the book". This is exactly what is said in the Quran. The non-Muslim "people of the book" however have to pay the Jizya tax to the Caliphate.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
If you can imagine France using nuclear weapons in order to stop Muslims from taking over any part of Europe (or any part of the world, including France itself), then you have quite an imagination.
This is also why all this back and forth over the current numbers is irrelevant. People pushing the idea that it's not that many Muslims (yet) don't think there would be anything wrong if there were 20% Muslims, or 50% Muslims, or even 100% Muslims. They're pretending like there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. Is there any reason to stop Muslims from taking over part of Europe and imposing their religious laws? I think there is. You and others think there isn't. The good news for you guys is that you're winning. The bad news for me is that for the time being I have to live in your fucking idiotic world.
Muslims have to be the way they are just to live. Here's what I mean.
If you don't become a Muslim in a predominantly Muslim land, Muslims will kill you.
If you become a Muslim to protect yourself, you have to be a good Muslim, or other Muslims might say you are backsliding and kill you.
This means that you have to become violent, at least in your shouting about how good of a Muslim you are.
If you shout too loudly (by accident) other Muslims start to look up to you, and push you into the role of leadership.
If you don't take the role of leadership and become a Muslim cleric, other Muslims might say you are backsliding, and kill you.
The whole above thing is all about the violence written in the Muslim holy books. And a lot of Muslims have been killed over the years because other Muslims needed someone else to focus on so that the violence of Islam wouldn't be focused on them.
Clerics who have been forced into the role want peace because they never really wanted to be violent in the first place. So they are trying to tone Muslim violence down.
Clerics who like to be clerics want peace, because they see that there is no advantage in violence. So they are trying to tone Muslim violence down.
Any Muslim who wants peace is going against the holy writings of Islam. But it is happening anyway.
A few Muslims actually think that they like the violence. A few others are trying to obey the holy books. That's where we get the radical terrorist Muslims from.
Who is the best Muslim according to the holy books? The terrorists. That's why we need to get rid of Islam altogether.
Ok, that is a bit of generalization. Not all Muslims suffer from this delusion to the same degree. Those severely deluded act on it and become terrorists. Those Muslims with mild delusions are the ones who say that "Islam is a religion of peace", and some of them believe in what they say.
Problem Islam has is that it cannot be changed. The codified rules are written in stone.
The transformation that Christianity went through is not really possible in Islam. So you either follow a 6th century moral code or you don't.
Most Christians don't follow the Bible (for good reasons). Nobody is killing people because they work on Sabbath anymore, stone women or cut hands off when a women touches someone's private parts during a fight between her husband the some other guy.
Muslims have to somehow modernize their religion to align it with secular legal frameworks we have in civilized societies in the 21st century.
Problem is the law (Sharia Law) provided by Allah. There is no easy way around it without abandoning Islam altogether.
ISIS are the only true Muslims as they follow the laws as outlined in the Quran. All other Muslims cherry pick from that book.
This is also why all this back and forth over the current numbers is irrelevant. People pushing the idea that it's not that many Muslims (yet) don't think there would be anything wrong if there were 20% Muslims, or 50% Muslims, or even 100% Muslims. They're pretending like there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. Is there any reason to stop Muslims from taking over part of Europe and imposing their religious laws? I think there is. You and others think there isn't. The good news for you guys is that you're winning. The bad news for me is that for the time being I have to live in your fucking idiotic world.
Fact is, if there is more than 50% of Muslims in a country, why couldn't they impose their religious law?
If you disagree with that don't live in a country with 50% muslims.
The truth is, there aren't reliable numbers. Here's a Wikipedia page that asserts there are several major European cities where the Muslim population is estimated at 15% or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population
Looking through the references on that page, they seem to date from 2008-2013, so that's before the current invasion.
I realize the discussion was about "European countries" not "European cities," but the distinction is artificial -- especially to invaders who don't recognize inifidel borders anyway.
The way modern Islamic invasions work is to take over parts of cities, apply Shariah law in their part of the city, and have violent riots if the native population (e.g., police) even set foot in the part they've taken. The takeover grows outward from these neighborhoods. Sometimes they venture outwards from the parts they've already taken to express their dominance over the natives, like happened New Year's Eve. The only way it could be stopped is if someone decided to do something. It's obvious no one will take such a decision
There are parts of Paris, London, Amsterdam, Birmingham, Malmo, and so on, that are already under Islamic rule. Everyone knows this, including the people who actively deny it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population
Looking through the references on that page, they seem to date from 2008-2013, so that's before the current invasion.
I realize the discussion was about "European countries" not "European cities," but the distinction is artificial -- especially to invaders who don't recognize inifidel borders anyway.
The way modern Islamic invasions work is to take over parts of cities, apply Shariah law in their part of the city, and have violent riots if the native population (e.g., police) even set foot in the part they've taken. The takeover grows outward from these neighborhoods. Sometimes they venture outwards from the parts they've already taken to express their dominance over the natives, like happened New Year's Eve. The only way it could be stopped is if someone decided to do something. It's obvious no one will take such a decision
There are parts of Paris, London, Amsterdam, Birmingham, Malmo, and so on, that are already under Islamic rule. Everyone knows this, including the people who actively deny it.
So for you "there are several major European cities where the Muslim population is estimated at 15% or more." can perfectly well be translated by "most Europeans countries already have a 15 to 20% Muslim population?
Seems like you've got some troubles with numbers.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
If you can imagine France using nuclear weapons in order to stop Muslims from taking over any part of Europe (or any part of the world, including France itself), then you have quite an imagination.
This is also why all this back and forth over the current numbers is irrelevant. People pushing the idea that it's not that many Muslims (yet) don't think there would be anything wrong if there were 20% Muslims, or 50% Muslims, or even 100% Muslims. They're pretending like there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. Is there any reason to stop Muslims from taking over part of Europe and imposing their religious laws? I think there is. You and others think there isn't. The good news for you guys is that you're winning. The bad news for me is that for the time being I have to live in your fucking idiotic world.
Muslims have to be the way they are just to live. Here's what I mean.
If you don't become a Muslim in a predominantly Muslim land, Muslims will kill you.
If you become a Muslim to protect yourself, you have to be a good Muslim, or other Muslims might say you are backsliding and kill you.
This means that you have to become violent, at least in your shouting about how good of a Muslim you are.
If you shout too loudly (by accident) other Muslims start to look up to you, and push you into the role of leadership.
If you don't take the role of leadership and become a Muslim cleric, other Muslims might say you are backsliding, and kill you.
The whole above thing is all about the violence written in the Muslim holy books. And a lot of Muslims have been killed over the years because other Muslims needed someone else to focus on so that the violence of Islam wouldn't be focused on them.
Clerics who have been forced into the role want peace because they never really wanted to be violent in the first place. So they are trying to tone Muslim violence down.
Clerics who like to be clerics want peace, because they see that there is no advantage in violence. So they are trying to tone Muslim violence down.
Any Muslim who wants peace is going against the holy writings of Islam. But it is happening anyway.
A few Muslims actually think that they like the violence. A few others are trying to obey the holy books. That's where we get the radical terrorist Muslims from.
Who is the best Muslim according to the holy books? The terrorists. That's why we need to get rid of Islam altogether.
Nothing seems to affect Trump's support. He is very good at explaining things away and diverting the attacks. He seems to always be on the offense.
Not only Americans, but the whole "free" world has been trained to enjoy television. Americans, especially, don't understand what reality is anymore.
Nothing seems to affect Trump's support. He is very good at explaining things away and diverting the attacks. He seems to always be on the offense.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
If you can imagine France using nuclear weapons in order to stop Muslims from taking over any part of Europe (or any part of the world, including France itself), then you have quite an imagination.
This is also why all this back and forth over the current numbers is irrelevant. People pushing the idea that it's not that many Muslims (yet) don't think there would be anything wrong if there were 20% Muslims, or 50% Muslims, or even 100% Muslims. They're pretending like there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam. Is there any reason to stop Muslims from taking over part of Europe and imposing their religious laws? I think there is. You and others think there isn't. The good news for you guys is that you're winning. The bad news for me is that for the time being I have to live in your fucking idiotic world.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
If you can imagine France using nuclear weapons in order to stop Muslims from taking over any part of Europe (or any part of the world, including France itself), then you have quite an imagination.
Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
The ISIS will probably use demographic Jihad to conquer Western Europe, by creating immigrant influx from the Middle East. By 2050, at least a few of the Western European nations will be Muslim majority. Already a few of them are 10% to 20% Muslim.
That said, Italy is less than 5% Muslim right now. And the rate of increase of the Muslim population is quite low, when compared to that in the other countries such as France and Germany. Still... we can't predict the future.
Funny how you keep spreading false informations backed by nothing.
France is the highest Muslim country in Europe with 8% Muslims.
So no, it's not "a few of them are 10% to 20% Muslim."
But keep writing false data, seems like nobody really cares about what's true or false on this forum.
The truth is, there aren't reliable numbers. Here's a Wikipedia page that asserts there are several major European cities where the Muslim population is estimated at 15% or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population
Looking through the references on that page, they seem to date from 2008-2013, so that's before the current invasion.
I realize the discussion was about "European countries" not "European cities," but the distinction is artificial -- especially to invaders who don't recognize inifidel borders anyway.
The way modern Islamic invasions work is to take over parts of cities, apply Shariah law in their part of the city, and have violent riots if the native population (e.g., police) even set foot in the part they've taken. The takeover grows outward from these neighborhoods. Sometimes they venture outwards from the parts they've already taken to express their dominance over the natives, like happened New Year's Eve. The only way it could be stopped is if someone decided to do something. It's obvious no one will take such a decision
There are parts of Paris, London, Amsterdam, Birmingham, Malmo, and so on, that are already under Islamic rule. Everyone knows this, including the people who actively deny it.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
If you can imagine France using nuclear weapons in order to stop Muslims from taking over any part of Europe (or any part of the world, including France itself), then you have quite an imagination.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Muslims capturing Rome would mean France tolerating a Muslim invaded neighboor while having nuclear power.
Seems really impossible to me
Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
The ISIS will probably use demographic Jihad to conquer Western Europe, by creating immigrant influx from the Middle East. By 2050, at least a few of the Western European nations will be Muslim majority. Already a few of them are 10% to 20% Muslim.
That said, Italy is less than 5% Muslim right now. And the rate of increase of the Muslim population is quite low, when compared to that in the other countries such as France and Germany. Still... we can't predict the future.
Funny how you keep spreading false informations backed by nothing.
France is the highest Muslim country in Europe with 8% Muslims.
So no, it's not "a few of them are 10% to 20% Muslim."
But keep writing false data, seems like nobody really cares about what's true or false on this forum.
Interesting how the pope had nothing to do with the trump until he decided to run for president. Now all of a sudden he's not christian. Nice.
this is definitely because of trump's anti-religious sayings for sure..
You had a choice. You could have made an apology and say you didn't know anything about the Vatican, but you didn't, so you've lost all credibility.
ROFLMAO! Seriously?
WTF do you think you are? If you cant fathom the truth, then please don't post here. Also, I am not living in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where blasphemy is punishable by death. You are having some serious issues. By any chance, did you happened to hold the position of a choir boy in any of the Catholic churches, during your childhood?
It is you, Mr Coleman, who doesn't want to face the truth. Please, go to the Vatican, and see by yourself. It's evident from what you wrote that you've never been there, and have no idea of how it is inside. And no, I've never been a choir boy. You have a lot of imagination, I prefer to watch and learn.
Hey,
I don't know you but please stop losing your time and energy
Coleman is just a random dumb person who likes to spread huge hoaxes without checking his sources ever. He sees the world in ONE way and everything different is bad and lies, and everything going in his way of seeing things is good and trues.
He will never apologize for anything cause he can't recognize he's wrong
So just add him to your ignore list and keep going!
Yes, thanks for advice. I guess that some days I just have time to lose...
Lincoln wasn't exactly a Christian, same for Jefferson. So it's not mandatory.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/almost-all-u-s-presidents-have-been-christians/
But don't forget US president has to pledge on the Bible, so he definitely can't be a Muslim or a Jew that's for sure.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/almost-all-u-s-presidents-have-been-christians/
But don't forget US president has to pledge on the Bible, so he definitely can't be a Muslim or a Jew that's for sure.
Absolutely. That doesn't make the US a Christian nation, but most founding fathers were protestant, and all US presidents have always shown huge respect to the Bible and all Christians. I guess Trump has more belief in the US$, then again, it's written on it "In God we trust".
Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
The ISIS will probably use demographic Jihad to conquer Western Europe, by creating immigrant influx from the Middle East. By 2050, at least a few of the Western European nations will be Muslim majority. Already a few of them are 10% to 20% Muslim.
That said, Italy is less than 5% Muslim right now. And the rate of increase of the Muslim population is quite low, when compared to that in the other countries such as France and Germany. Still... we can't predict the future.
Pope should not attack Trump. Trump has big chance to be the next President of America. Pope would be needing Trump help once ISIS surrounded Vatican.
Lol..... Once ISIS conquers Rome and Vatican, the Pope will cut a deal with the ISIS and convert to Islam. This guy only bothers about money and influence. He never cares about the 1 billion+ adherents, who believe in Roman Catholicism.
ISIS will never conquer the Vatican. Russia will make them disappear before they ever do anything. However, I wouldn't be surprised by a bomb attack there, real or faked
...Yes, the idea of Muslims capturing Rome/Vatican City is farfetched. It's as likely as Muslims capturing Constantinople (Second Rome).
Wait.
Jump to: