>I wish they would take advice because the Ayatollah could wind up like Kaddafi or Saddam
Saddam was executed humanely under American supervision, and Qaddafi had some torture from some relatively unsophisticated people. I think the Persians are much more sophisticated.
>Here is the main problem with both Islamic Muslims and Jews
Both of them are basically pagan religions that exalt a particular tribe, while proclaiming universality.
It's like if Trump demanded that the whole world embrace MAGA.
But the whole world is not America, so that makes no sense.
There are obviously good things about Judaism, as much of Judaism is incorporated into Christianity.
Jesus was born a Jew, but I suppose someone will quibble and, yes, they are right, "Jew" is an English word, etc.
There are also good things about Islam (and very bad things), even if it is ultimately ridiculous as a universal religion.
God works in mysterious ways.
One of the "good things" about Islam is that it fundamentally recognizes that men want women.
And it sets limits on that, while still acknowledging it.
This is widely chastised as one of the very BAD things about Islam, as it allows four wives (if well-treated) and sex slaves and so on.
By contrast, the New Testament, especially Paul, seems to disparage the idea of any man being with his wife, even though God giving Adam a wife was perhaps the CRUCIAL part of Genesis, in that it first suggests that God might ever in any way err.
But the reality of historical Christianity is that it is built upon preexisting cultures that are NOT entirely discarded and that have historically guided men and women into fruitful relations with each other.
Unfortunately (in the short term), that is not the world we live in right now.
>How about some sauce for that. I am sure, you are interpreting wrong.
I am thinking most especially of Matthew 19:12 (KJV):
"For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
I think that most interpret this in the way I articulate.
Actually, most do.
Maybe they are wrong.
That said, most actual believing Christians do not actually try to interpret this text, as most existing Christian churches highly point towards marriage as good.
>How about some sauce for that. I am sure, you are interpreting wrong.
Of course, there is perhaps a deeper answer here.
The New Testament proclaims that God became Man.
But while Jesus is depicted as struggling with temptation at times, he is never depicted as struggling with by far the deepest sort of moral quandry that actual men face, which is obviously how they relate to and engage with actual particular women.
This turns out to be a SOLVED PROBLEM, in actual history, since historical Christianity is not a tribal religon, but an overlay on many actually existing cultures that give guidance on these things.
Unfortunately, technocratic modernity has eviscerated these mores and now literally turns men into eunuchs because SCIENCE.
Because he is somehow grasping that an immediate trust in Christ somehow puts him in contact with a deeper truth than whatever someone touting deductions is offering.
It would be kinda funny if the whole Greenland thing was just a setup to brutally seize Diego Garcia from Londinistan.