Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Sorry, FH, but our current sorry excuse for a president has his priorities, and stopping ISIS isn't one of them. I would not expect any truly effective action from the US until after he has left office. After that, who knows? Depends upon who replaces him.

[Falcon Horus]

Sorry, FH, but our current sorry excuse for a president has his priorities, and stopping ISIS isn't one of them. I would not expect any truly effective action from the US until after he has left office. After that, who knows? Depends upon who replaces him.

I don't believe that - otherwise the Americans wouldn't be involved in the bombings. Plus, I agree that having boots on the ground is not the way at the moment, unless you want to watch beheadings every night on the 7 o'clock news. Or people being tied to pillars in Palmyra and blown to bits. It won't be locals but American soldiers (both are bad).

The US is arming the rebels in Syria, remember. The Kurds are winning ground on Daesh. And France has them running from Raqqa. Russia is in league with Assad - Obama isn't, and with good reason.

[Womble]

I don't believe that - otherwise the Americans wouldn't be involved in the bombings.

On inertia from previous involvement. Were it up to Obama, they wouldn't be.

Plus, I agree that having boots on the ground is not the way at the moment, unless you want to watch beheadings every night on the 7 o'clock news. Or people being tied to pillars in Palmyra and blown to bits. It won't be locals but American soldiers (both are bad).

The US is arming the rebels in Syria, remember. The Kurds are winning ground on Daesh. And France has them running from Raqqa. Russia is in league with Assad - Obama isn't, and with good reason.

So the Kurds being tied to pillars in Palmyra is better?

[SoulReaver]

Sorry, FH, but our current sorry excuse for a president has his priorities, and stopping ISIS isn't one of them

you think it's Putin's priority?

[Annoyed]

No.

[garhkal]

Has it occured to either of you that maybe he was being held up - have you two never been late for an appointment because of unexpected stuff happening along the way.
.

If that was the case, why was someone not informed of it, so the others there, were not starting without him?

[SGalisa]

Has it occured to either of you that maybe he was being held up - have you two never been late for an appointment because of unexpected stuff happening along the way.

I gave the articles plenty of wiggle room for tardiness (showing up late at that meeting). Please NOTE--

Plus, I read that when the G-20 had started their meeting with a moment of silence, President Obama walked into the G-20 room "late" after the moment of silence --prayers for the families and wounded hurting in France-- had already begun. Was that a (sort of snub? -- adding *insult to injury*) message or genuine tardiness? The comments from readers were obviously annoyed over it even showing up in the news (November 16, 2015), appeared in several articles (Fox, Western Journalism, Daily Mail, but other major news outlets refrained from even mentioning it). True or not, one of the pictures showed a G-20 colleague sort of annoyed about the incident.

I just wrote down what the readers were saying as observation, but gave room for some issue that could have caused him to be late -- includes having to go to the restroom for a few minutes, too..!
People who grow older do have to go sometimes without too much wiggle room for delaying what nature demands..

..our current..president... I would not expect any truly effective action from the US until after he has left office. After that, who knows? Depends upon who replaces him.

That is, only if our (USA) nation survives past the next few years intact without getting ambushed into some horrid slaughter by any infiltrating I.S./affiliate members, or from some other disaster -- on the manmade level of stirring up burdensome living conditions (and not relating to "climate change" either).

Sorry, FH, but our current sorry excuse for a president has his priorities, and stopping ISIS isn't one of them.

He pretty much said that in the news blurbs that I heard on the radio today/yesterday. Instead, Pres.Obama was ridiculing Christians and putting more emphasis on (safe-guarding) the importance of the Muslim world.

Well, both groups of people are important -- to God (He created them to live,but also gave them free will to obey or disobey His/God's commands). Problem is that it is permissible to an Islamic extremist (I.S., Boco Haran, etc) to commit what Christians would consider a crime in the eyes of a Holy God -- so "Allah" cannot be compatible in that sense with the Christian God(or Jesus). Psychopaths do the same thing as Extremists who want to go kill, maime, rape, slaughter, steal, blow-up, or do other destructive stuff to their neighbors..

Sorry, FH, but our current sorry excuse for a president has his priorities, and stopping ISIS isn't one of them.

I don't believe that - otherwise the Americans wouldn't be involved in the bombings.

Ever hear of "smoke and mirrors"? (--because some commentators keep writing that into their reactions to certain articles being reported in the news). Conspiracy of that or not, the answer is in the actual evidence. AKA, recent bombing of the Russian airliner had to sort out if there was fake bomb sniffing equipment being used by the Egyptians in trying to trust some other country from revealing the truth. After Russia determined the plane was brought down by a bomb (probably had a Russian team go in and test the damaged parts themselves), that the I.S. came out and claimed there was a bomb in a soda can that exploded the plane. Mighty powerful bomb. That's why some USA airlines won't let passengers bring their own soda cans be brought onto planes -- closed lid or not.

Conflicts that cause serious damage are just as bad as an full-scale war. Sometimes, even when engaged in little spats, there can be lots of disinformation going on out from what is actually occurring in the field vs. what our sensitive, civilian selves are hearing or reading. Afterall, does anyone really believe with the way the I.S. has been operating, that they are going to tell the exact location of what is being hit and when? Maybe with a 2 minute countdown, then boom! The intentions of the I.S. has been very clear to inflict damage -- regardless the size/space being afflicted -- it has never been to rescue anyone (except their own) from getting caught in the middle, unless that was a outright lie for a later ambush setup.


Also, if disinformation is what has been going on, how else can the following incident (in the below quote) be explained?

Whatever the news media has been reporting, there are many blog readers commenting by asking --and this is a paraphrase, "if France recently hit a major weapons depot plus a central command center (within the past few days), exactly what targets are our USA guys hitting? Pot shots here and there, and then ducking for cover?" Can't be amounting to anything too significant.

Truth is, we in the civilian world only hear/see what we are told. Not necessarily what is genuinely happening. Anyone can write up a bunch of numbers with how many targets were hit on what days, and where, etc., and make it look authentic -- it's all part of the *disinformation* process. If that is true, then only "God" and the folks committing the deeds know exactly what is going on for real. The rest of us are just gullible (and potentially disposable) fodder on the sidelines.

[SGalisa]

Ever hear of "smoke and mirrors"? (--because some commentators keep writing that into their reactions to certain articles being reported in the news). Conspiracy of that or not, the answer is in the actual evidence.
...

Conflicts that cause serious damage are just as bad as an full-scale war. Sometimes, even when engaged in little spats, there can be lots of disinformation going on out from what is actually occurring in the field vs. what our sensitive, civilian selves are hearing or reading.

I meant to say that if there is some level of disinformation being handed out to the public, that it is a form of (political) propaganda. Happens most of the time in any war, and even occurs in local neighborhood conflicts. Depends on TPTB in control on how they want to make a situation or story *appear* as. There are enough World War II propaganda films available (or they were available years ago) to understand that what the average non-military person sees or hears, is not necessarily what is a true situation.

Propaganda news is often created and used to influence certain persons/groups of people to *feel* disturbed enough or motivated to vote or act into a specific direction. If the USA was destroying I.S. controlled central command centers and munitions depots, then why, after Paris got attacked, did France go after the one that most of the whole world thought was already destroyed --within the last year-- by USA military strikes..? If those I.S. places of control were truly demolished prior, then France wouldn't have made a big deal over the places they just hit in a few days ago.
.. many readers' reactions to the above *disinformation* news item ---- >

[Anja]

I meant to say that if there is some level of disinformation being handed out to the public, that it is a form of (political) propaganda. Happens most of the time in any war, and even occurs in local neighborhood conflicts. Depends on TPTB in control on how they want to make a situation or story *appear* as. There are enough World War II propaganda films available (or they were available years ago) to understand that what the average non-military person sees or hears, is not necessarily what is a true situation.

Propaganda news is often created and used to influence certain persons/groups of people to *feel* disturbed enough or motivated to vote or act into a specific direction. If the USA was destroying I.S. controlled central command centers and munitions depots, then why, after Paris got attacked, did France go after the one that most of the whole world thought was already destroyed --within the last year-- by USA military strikes..? If those I.S. places of control were truly demolished prior, then France wouldn't have made a big deal over the places they just hit in a few days ago.
.. many readers' reactions to the above *disinformation* news item ---- >

This is very, very true!!

[Falcon Horus]

If that was the case, why was someone not informed of it, so the others there, were not starting without him?

Unlike what many of you like to believe, Obama isn't president of the world, just the US. In the grand scheme of things he isn't the most important guy on the planet.

Maybe someone was but it got lost in translation. You don't know what went on. Who knows what occured prior to his attendance (Nature called perhaps, like SGAlisa suggests - and when you gotta go, you gotta go).

I just wrote down what the readers were saying as observation...

So, you base your assumption on the assumption of other readers of the article?

Instead, Pres.Obama was ridiculing Christians and putting more emphasis on (safe-guarding) the importance of the Muslim world.

Are you sure that's what you heard? Or is that the voice in the back in your head wanting you to believe the hilarious notion that Obama is Muslim (if he was, that'd be the day).

Problem is that it is permissible to an Islamic extremist (I.S., Boko Haram, etc) to commit what Christians would consider a crime in the eyes of a Holy God...

It's not permissible to anyone to commit these sort of crimes (which the Catholics themseves have committed on plenty occasions).

-- so "Allah" cannot be compatible in that sense with the Christian God(or Jesus).

Did you just say "My God is better than your Allah!"?!? Did you just really say that?

Oh my goddess... this is... nope, not gonna say it.

...recent bombing of the Russian airliner had to sort out if there was fake bomb sniffing equipment being used by the Egyptians in trying to trust some other country from revealing the truth.

More acccurately Egyptian security is a bit on the iffy side.

After Russia determined the plane was brought down by a bomb (probably had a Russian team go in and test the damaged parts themselves), that the I.S. came out and claimed there was a bomb in a soda can that exploded the plane.

Daesh claimed the planecrash right after - or a day or so after and they would explain on a later date how they'd done it.

It doesn't need much to bring down a plane. A well-placed IED can do it.

That's why some USA airlines won't let passengers bring their own soda cans be brought onto planes -- closed lid or not.

Oh come on, sodacans have 330ml of fluid. You can only take a maximum of 100ml. And when they're not sure, they ask you to drink it (nitroglycerine really doesn't taste that great I imagine).

Afterall, does anyone really believe with the way the I.S. has been operating, that they are going to tell the exact location of what is being hit and when?

Yup, some of them do -- case in London of an idiot who asked which place to hit, caught the polices attention and got him and his wife arrested. They were planning a chemical attack on the subway.

Truth is, we in the civilian world only hear/see what we are told. Not necessarily what is genuinely happening.

And that's why you go out into the world (in a manner of speaking) and inform yourself. Find as many sources as you can - don't stick to one source. Think, extrapolate, pretend you're an investigator yourself...

Propaganda news is often created and used to influence certain persons/groups of people to *feel* disturbed enough or motivated to vote or act into a specific direction.

You mean like conveniently leaving a Syrian passport lying around so that countries will close off their borders and Syrian refugees are left to fend for themselves.

If the USA was destroying I.S. controlled central command centers and munitions depots, then why, after Paris got attacked, did France go after the one that most of the whole world thought was already destroyed --within the last year-- by USA military strikes..?

Err... France is going after Raqqa, which everyone (except you apparently) knows hasn't been destroyed at all. It is/was Daesh capital of sorts (now, they're running for Mosul in Iraq).

[SGalisa]

Will have to tackle this into 2 postings.

I just wrote down what the readers were saying as observation...

So, you base your assumption on the assumption of other readers of the article?
...
And that's why you go out into the world (in a manner of speaking) and inform yourself. Find as many sources as you can - don't stick to one source. Think, extrapolate, pretend you're an investigator yourself...

No assumptions made. It's a culmination of many articles and comments from those, plus what is mentioned by both radio hosts and callers on several different radio programs. Why do you think it takes me forever to reply to these forum *inquisitions*? (wink,wink)
I recently came across an index listing of news compiled on certain (same) subjects from other countries, and it ain't google news, but from someone who does research on those subjects. (And no, I'm not sharing the main index source.)

Oh come on, sodacans have 330ml of fluid. You can only take a maximum of 100ml. And when they're not sure, they ask you to drink it (nitroglycerine really doesn't taste that great I imagine).

Maybe in airports with heavy security precautions strictly set into place. However, according to all of the reports I heard and read---- that airport security was not very secure, but very lenient according to news reports. So, whoever was approving the passengers to enter the plane, were not required to make the person drink from the soda can. And especially not, if it was an inside situation (passenger knew the airport crew, etc.). Besides, what if the exploding compound / mixture was a solid packed down below? One can fake drinking from a soda can if that were the situation. Maybe there was more than one can involved (or some other container) that got combined once it was on the airplane. Doesn't matter since the deed and damage is now done.

...Instead, Pres.Obama was ridiculing Christians and putting more emphasis on (safe-guarding) the importance of the Muslim world.

Are you sure that's what you heard?

Actual conversation was directed to Republicans against the idea of designing a Christian test to see which refugees might not be of the terrorist category.

From the Blaze -- (I also heard the same blurb on the radio, too)

"Obama Mocks GOP Critics Over Syrian Refugees With Scathing Remarks..."
by Oliver Darcy, Nov. 17, 2015 9:45pm


President Barack Obama on Tuesday blasted Republicans who have been critical of allowing Syrian refugees to enter the U.S.

Speaking in the Philippines after a meeting with President Benigno Aquino III, Obama said comments made by some on the right were "offensive" and "political posturing," according to the White House pool report.

"When individuals say we should have religious tests, and only Christians, proven Christians, should be allowed, that's offensive and contrary to American values," the president said.

...
The president contended his critics were playing right into the Islamic State's hands.

"I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate," he said. "ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there's war between Islam and the West, and when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land that feeds the ISIL narrative. It's counter productive. And it needs to stop."

Highlighted font is the point he was making.
(please--don't ask me to be an editor of my own notes! ugh!)

Problem with making any type of questionnaire test, to see how knowledgeable an infiltrator is with the Bible, is that such a person would probably memorize the typical Christian salvation message stuff, and lie their way in that way. Lying is acceptable when operating via jihad for the sake of "Allah" and Islam in the minds of an Islamic extremist.

I don't think creating such a quiz/test would work. That's the system the I.S. uses for the Koran. What's worse is for a person pretending to be a Muslim to get asked to prove their worthiness by killing someone, which is what the I.S. has already forced Christians claiming to convert to Islam do.

Besides, if Pres.Obama or anyone else wanted to make the system more *fair* then place 50/50 percent of each group into the states. No favoritism when the percentage is evenly split. For every 5,000 refugees entering, then 2500 should be Kurds and 2500 Muslim. If they get a lower % of radicals in due to the even split and yet someone in TPTB may have known more might enter if there were less Christians, too bad. If they wanted a fair deal, then make it an even split between both groups.

...Or is that the voice in the back in your head wanting you to believe the hilarious notion that Obama is Muslim (if he was, that'd be the day).

I don't know what is in President Obama's heart of hearts. Only God knows that and what Pres.Obama truly believes and sides with. So, aside from that there is something else that has been told over and over, including by other Muslims.

Actually, if the parents are of mixed religious backgrounds, the mother being traditional Christian and the father a Muslim, the child is automatically deemed a Muslim in the eyes of the Muslim community, regardless of what the child claims to believe.
In Judaism with mixed religious parents, it is the mother whom the child is deemed to be (spiritually) Jewish or not. It is NOT the Father, which is why in the Bible, Mary was the determining (spiritual and geneological) factor for which side of the spiritual spectrum Jesus (of Nazareth) came from. Now, it makes sense with the emphasis being on Mary instead of being placed on Joseph.
In Christianity, it is the (FREEDOM of) choice of the child, regardless of what the parents are or believe.

So, regardless of what Church and pew our President sat in for decades, the Muslim community sees him as a Muslim. This info did not come from radio talk-show hosts, but from other Muslims. . . any non-Muslim person who has repeated that info has only done so, because they got the info from a Muslim originally.

If all that is true, that a Jewish child is determined to be Jewish by the Mother and a Muslim determined of Islam by the Father, then since Pres.Obama's father WAS a Muslim, but mother a Christian, then he is deemed Muslim by the Muslim standard. If the mother was a Muslim and father Christian, then it would NOT matter. However, since Pres.Obama's father WAS a Muslim, that automatically makes him (B.H.Obama) a Muslim, regardless of what he claims to display or state his beliefs as.

There is no getting around that rule, no matter how people want to twist or revise it. As for what I personally think -- I don't really care. He is what he is, whatever side of the fence he's really on, and will answer his core belief to God personally, some day. So, right now, the answer is between himself and God.


end of part 1.. part 2 next.

[SGalisa]

Part 2 of 2... (continued)

Well, both groups of people are important -- to God (He created them to live,but also gave them free will to obey or disobey His/God's commands). Problem is that it is permissible to an Islamic extremist (I.S., Boco Haran, etc) to commit what Christians would consider a crime in the eyes of a Holy God -- so "Allah" cannot be compatible in that sense with the Christian God(or Jesus). Psychopaths do the same thing as Extremists who want to go kill, maime, rape, slaughter, steal, blow-up, or do other destructive stuff to their neighbors..

Did you just say "My God is better than your Allah!"?!? Did you just really say that?

No. If "Allah" and Christianity's "Father-God" were on the same level as each other or compatible/with only slight differences, then they would be equal in harmony/similar, with different names given by each group of believers.

In Context -- this was originally about the Islamic extremist (I.S., Boco Haran, etc) version of "God" as "Allah" vs. Christian version of "God". But, since more than that is implied by your (FH) comment, let's see what the Koran says in its own written words, regardless of whether a person is being radical force (or *extremist*) for "Allah" or a gentle living, quiet and compliant believer.

Please note --- "Compatible" means the following---

"compatible
(adj.)
1. Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others: compatible family relationships.
2. Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system with no modification or conversion required.
3. Capable of forming a chemically or biochemically stable system.
4. Medicine Capable of being grafted, transfused, or transplanted from one individual to another without rejection: compatible blood.

Going with definitions 1 and 2. Harmonious, agreeable. . . family; NO conversion required.
Use those definitions of "compatibility" for a standard of measurement between both Islam, radical Islam, and Christianity -- and which behaviors are approved by the Muslim or Christian versions of "God". Also, for now, simply Ignore the differences between what each believes Jesus' role is or was and just use the "rules" provided in both with Islam measured by what is written in the Koran and Christianity by the Bible. Jesus' words are included, but not any Church leaders who came after the Christian version of the Bible was finished in its original writing.

So, according to the Koran, Islam has at least 10 verses (I heard as many as 35 verses today on the radio) that specifically state when it is okay to kill an infidel, as noted by the Koran's own text/words declaring *approval* for killing/torturing infidels.

New Testament half of the "Holy Bible" does not encourage any killing or torturing of non-believers. Just because Jesus did say it would be better to tie a millstone around a sinner's neck and drown them, instead of harming any one of the little children; He did not necessarily endorse that as a criminal penalty. Reason why is this---- if Jesus truly or symbolically nailed all of our sins to the cross, such penalties are not necessary under "Christian" living. Such a penalty would be up to the civilian and military courts --laws of the land-- instead, not the religious (Christian) court. Even the Sanhedrin shied away from personally torturing Jesus.. They sent Jesus to the Roman rulers, instead to do any of that sort of punishment (blamed for blasphemy and treason)).

Anywho, Jesus (of Nazareth) told his disciples that if anyone refused to receive them or the Word Jesus sent, then the disciples were to simply walk away and "shake the dust off their sandals". Nothing more. No murder, no swearing. Just WALK away. No killing, no maiming, no stealing, no nothing. Just walk away and forget about it.

Since the (Jewish) 10 Commandments are a main part of Christian living, then No killing, No lying (no bearing false witness against one's neighbor/etc), No stealing of someone else's property, etc. However, the Islamic State (I.S./ISIL/ISIS) claims it is OKAY to kill, etc., that "Allah" approves of this behavior -- thus nullifying several of the (Jewish) 10 Commandments, proving that their version of Islam is NOT compatible with Christianity.
Also, the Koran does state in several verses to kill the infidel (unbeliever) because of their unbelief.. and provides a bunch of other reasons or situations that state when/why to kill the infidel.
Don't remember where the verses were, but saw them many,many months ago, and that is the jist of it.

So, there is the measurement standard for compatibility.
Since the Koran approves on killing unbelievers/infidels and the Christian half of the Bible states to walk away and not come back (if permanently refused), then that means that "Allah"s rules are *NOT* compatible with the Christian Jesus/God.

Dragging the crusades into this or the Hebrew scriptures about historical incidents with which Hebrews killed which groups of people is not part of this study.
This is solely noting approval differences or similarities between Islam's source (Koran/Quran) and Christianity's source (New Testament portion of the Bible).
No where else is it commanded or even recommended in the NT to kill anyone who does not believe in Jesus/or the Christian God (using the ten commandments + two more, per what Jesus said as the standard measurement system). And since the ten commandments states not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, etc. -- that means ---
extremist Islam's "Allah" is NOT compatible with the Christian "God".. and certainly not with Jesus' words.

On the other extreme, If a Muslim believes it is *wrong* to murder, lie, steal... and abide by that belief publicly and privately, then, in their heart of hearts God will judge them accordingly in comparison to the measure of their belief and actions. If that is in harmony with the Christian way of life, regardless of one's POV about Jesus in general, then both standards *are* compatible. Otherwise, they are not. There is a huge difference between killing and not killing.



..it's late.. sorry if there are any typos... ..

[Falcon Horus]

(And no, I'm not sharing the main index source.)

And why is that?
Why aren't you sharing the source - afraid it's a wonky. Will you have to shoot me?

...that airport security was not very secure, but very lenient according to news reports.

I don't need a news report to tell me that. It's Egypt - what else do people expect.
Probably the only airports where I won't beep every single time.

Actual conversation was directed to Republicans against the idea of designing a Christian test to see which refugees might not be of the terrorist category.

That bolded part, right there... that should have been enough to make you stop reading and go "Hey now, what's this now? Are you for real? What's next, every muslim must wear a crescent moon on their jackets so they can be recognized more easily, to set them apart from the better half of the population?"

If you can't tell that such an idea borders on total lunacy, then I really fear you've not learned your history lessons well.

Freedom of religion in the US = if you're Christian or an off-shoot, not if you follow Islam.

I don't think creating such a quiz/test would work.

I would fail spectacularly - good thing I'm not interested moving to the land of the "free".

That's the system the I.S. uses for the Koran. What's worse is for a person pretending to be a Muslim to get asked to prove their worthiness by killing someone, which is what the I.S. has already forced Christians claiming to convert to Islam do.

*sigh*

Daesh uses bits and pieces, and only those bits that suit their needs. They pick and choose. They're monsters which should be put down as soon as possible (quote from my Muslim friend yesterday over lunch).

No. If "Allah" and Christianity's "Father-God" were on the same level as each other or compatible/with only slight differences, then they would be equal in harmony/similar, with different names given by each group of believers.

I'm gonna stop you right there... BECAUSE I asked you not what the bible or the quran or whatever other book says. You said it, so I asked you. Please, for once, take responsibility for your own words.

[aretood2]

I'm gonna stop you right there... BECAUSE I asked you not what the bible or the quran or whatever other book says. You said it, so I asked you. Please, for once, take responsibility for your own words.

The answer seems obvious to me.

[SGalisa]

And why is that?
Why aren't you sharing the source - afraid it's a wonky. Will you have to shoot me?

No. Tho it may be a bit on the strange / weird side from your POV..
You (probably) wouldn't be interested, as it might be a waste of your free time to do more important things.
It's Christian -- meaning Christ-centered, scripturally based, reinforcement of comments with Bible verses you'd find boring.


I've been on other Christian websites before. Wasn't sure about that one (never heard of it before, tho it's been around for a long time) -- in fact, I hesitated quite a long while before I decided to look at one of the linked articles from another site into there. Have been pleasantly surprised ever since then.

I'm gonna stop you right there... BECAUSE I asked you not what the bible or the quran or whatever other book says. You said it, so I asked you. Please, for once, take responsibility for your own words.

I did. I provided an in-depth reply with reinforcements from actual sources for my answer. I know how these grilling session inquisitions can get.
That's *why* I inserted the definition of "compatibility". So, please note the following. . .
Original comment you quoted from me was this nugget portion---

"-- so "Allah" cannot be compatible in that sense with the Christian God(or Jesus)."

I requoted it with the entire context of what I was referring to. What portion you snipped out, had a bigger context you left out.
here it is again---(tho, use the linky arrow at the top of the below first quote -- to view the entire posting)

Spoiler:

Well, both groups of people are important -- to God (He created them to live,but also gave them free will to obey or disobey His/God's commands). Problem is that it is permissible to an Islamic extremist (I.S., Boco Haran, etc) to commit what Christians would consider a crime in the eyes of a Holy God -- so "Allah" cannot be compatible in that sense with the Christian God(or Jesus). Psychopaths do the same thing as Extremists who want to go kill, maime, rape, slaughter, steal, blow-up, or do other destructive stuff to their neighbors..

Did you just say "My God is better than your Allah!"?!? Did you just really say that?

No. If "Allah" and Christianity's "Father-God" were on the same level as each other or compatible/with only slight differences, then they would be equal in harmony/similar, with different names given by each group of believers.

In Context -- this was originally about the Islamic extremist (I.S., Boco Haran, etc) version of "God" as "Allah" vs. Christian version of "God". But, since more than that is implied by your (FH) comment, let's see what the Koran says in its own written words, regardless of whether a person is being radical force (or *extremist*) for "Allah" or a gentle living, quiet and compliant believer.

Please note --- "Compatible" means the following---
. . .

blah,blah,blah.

That's the info that has been the guiding standard ever since you've been hounding me about this stuff. I've basically said a thousand different ways the SAME stuff; the only thing that has changed is how I've worded my replies.
Sorry, but there is no other standard. It's not based on a personal *feeling* but evidence of actions and reactions.

A good study response will go back to the sources and compare them against each other. Afterall, how are you going to understand the differences if you don't know the backgrounds behind each one? If they prove to be alike with same/similar degree in morals, then they are compatible (on the golden rule sort of wavelength). If not, then why would the SAME "GOD" be strict with one religious group (Christians via the Bible's *HOLY* commands) saying "Do NOT kill/steal/lie/covet.." and be overly permissive with another religious group (Islam/radical Islam via the Koran's *sacred* commands) by telling them it is okay to "(Do) kill the infidel/cut off their ..." etc.

I had this conversation with a Muslim many years ago from the Christian POV side (I didn't know what was in the Koran at that time, and the other person never offered to me their Islamic belief/s). We were discussing "sin" behaviors and what Jesus in the Bible said about being a stumbling block or possibly offending another person and how to resolve or fix the *problem* behavior. It was a passage in the Bible that forever disturbed me, because of what it implied. Jesus was discussing about cutting out body parts or chopping limbs off, if those parts/limbs were offensive to you enough that they might prevent you from entering heaven. It was a hypothetical statement about sin's natural behavior being offensive. It was NOT a command to actually commit the actual punishment deed on the personal level.
(Please see more details at Matthew 5-27-30; Matthew 18:6-9; Mark 9:42-50 / "Holy Bible")

Because there have been several folks we know who have been in the military, some of those people have shared about the warnings given to visitors to the Middle East and how crime is dealt with over there (as opposed to the USA) -- the governing systems/or authorities in the Middle East actually DO chop off limbs, gouge out eyes, etc, and those are all punishments also enforced by Sharia Law. Years later, after I read from someone else that the Koran actually enforces this action as punishment, which reaffirms how far a so-called "sin" is treated in the Islamic world. It is NOT to be tolerated, and it is to be dealt with immediately and harshly. The Koran goes further into stating various reasons when to kill an infidel (a non-Muslim sinner in Christian terminology). No where does the Bible state killing a sinner, just because one of their body parts might be offensive to them. However, Islamic Sharia Law commands for such limbs and body parts to be physically severed, if they are declared to be part of a crime; this includes the whole body condemned to death in worst case scenario.

In secular LAW, when a crime is committed, it is given a penalty due to current living offenses. In Christianity, the "offenses" listed with physical punishments were implied to eternal consequences. Jesus nailed those crimes ("offenses") to the cross, so the penalties have been paid -- with no more need for ANYONE to go thru further punishment. Islam considers the Bible now as obsolete, and holds the Koran as the ruling, scriptural authority and claims to look at both the now and eternal rewards. So, it rewards and punishes accordingly on an actual physical level. Problem there is that the radical Islamists are being hypocritical by breaking every moral code, golden rule, ever known to mankind -- for the sake of jihad, done in the name of Islam, and for the Koran.

This isn't stuff that just popped into my head overnight. I've been studying Christianity for more than 50 years, and grasping what Islam is about since around 2005. When a person questions the very verses that have bugged them for years, and then compares with other religions regarding the same issues, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what *common sense* dictates to your own heart..!

In other words, if you're going to question why it says it's okay to do such-an-such over here, but NOT okay to do it over in that other religion, WHY is that -- especially if our "God" is the same entity for both / all groups of *believers*..? Is "God" playing people favorites? or is there some other reason why this situation exists? Fair is fair.

And then people wonder why --if there were only two spiritual/eternal choices-- a person would seek out becoming a radical Islamic over a Christian..? That's a No brainer there. Go out and kill, injure, maime, rape, engage in group orgy rapes, steal, take hostages!, destroy, whatever -- all for the sake of Islam (Islamic State and affiliates), because it's okay to do in that purpose. Who'd want to be a restricted Christian living with a zillion *don'ts* -- when everything the Islamic State doing jihad with a zillion DO's and gets to have the (so-called SAME) eternal paradise, plus a bunch of personal virgins to party forever with..?

Afterall, (much of the worldly image of heaven is) dead Christians are *imagined* to be singing boring hymns and playing harps,etc, for the rest of eternity in the heavenlies instead. . . that's fun? Honestly, if the "God" I believed in said disregard the 10 Commandments, because the commands given in the Koran overrides the Christian Bible -- I'd probably switch, if I were male. It's a man's world out there -- women must submit! Men get more freedom to do as they please -- and GET away with it both on earth AND in eternity. . . Anyone who thinks that isn't soothing music to one's soul has a weird POV of life.

Except I take the words of what Jesus said seriously. I just understand his observation as showing how dealing with our own "sin" / behavioral natures can lead to performing drastic deeds in stopping "SIN" from manifesting itself. I even said to the Muslim person discussing what Jesus said about chopping off limbs, etc., that it was ultimately futile to go thru all that. If someone was determined enough to commit a "sin" -- they would go out of their way, even with all of their limbs chopped off to continue in that behavior. I think that is the whole POINT Jesus was trying to make.

However, the whole jihad POV of twisting everything that was once a "don't" into a do, is being a bit hypocritical in my comprehension of this whole study. In other words, Can't have it BOTH ways. You either DO or you DON'T follow the rules and regs of "God's" commands to get into *eternal paradise*.


How much more do you need to understand the obvious differences, IF there were or are any?
So, now I've added a bunch more of my own words to this already wordy study..
Additionally, I would say that the I.S. is saying that their version of "Allah" is much better and greater than any other "religious" figure, because their version of "Allah" let's them go out and play, and not pay any penalties for the consequences of their actions. In fact, they get rewarded better than the Christians version of eternity, and better than any other religion that ever existed on this planet.

I do not believe I need to re-explain this any better or further.

The answer seems obvious to me.

Thank you! Seems pretty *obvious* to me, too.