Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "J-TV: Jewish Ideas. Global Relevance." channel.

  1.  @timvella1817  Nazareth was by Galilee in the north. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. "Give back" is not a statement of sovereignty, its a reference to the fact that Egypt once annexed it.
    10
  2. What civilians do you claim were killed by the IDF on Oct 7th? Are you including the terrorist invaders because they weren't wearing uniforms?
    6
  3.  @jacuzzihot That's what arguments are for. To find out.
    6
  4.  @madhavi108  Why don't you watch his video?
    5
  5. Now all you have to do is persuade the Palestinians. Good luck.
    3
  6. Nobody has been righteous enough to deserve God. All God's blessings are acts of grace, not reward for merit.
    3
  7. Conservatives are the ones that give. This is documented in the book "Who Really Cares?" They contribute more and volunteer more.
    3
  8.  @juniorwilliams66  "3,500 yrs!!!" About 2K contiguous years, not their first exile. There was a diaspora before the CE 70 war, but the Jews had a homeland. before then.
    3
  9.  @StopSettlerViolence  If you are unfamiliar with the evidence for G-d, it is because you haven't looked.
    2
  10.  @wordwarrior2350  None of what you said means anything.
    2
  11.  @chrisdickens4268 That's your prime example? That you disagree about the nature of a relationship he must know about and you cannot? I've been friends with cops, and professors, that does not make me a cop or a professor. And Christopher Hitchens wasn't much of an intellectual. DM wrote bestsellers and sold them on their merit. I'd never heard of the connection, nor have most who follow his work. This is an absurd charge because. 1. You can't know it's false. 2. Your supposed motive for his "deception" simply couldn't be expected to have the effect that you allege motivated it. If that's your best comeback you're busted.
    2
  12. Where did he say that?
    2
  13.  @JoggoJuniorMan  You seem to think that you contradicted him. I can't see that you did. Unless you just read the first 6 words and reacted emotionally. He probably should have said that their hatred for Jews is based on another deeper hatred.
    2
  14.  @mariahewitt9787  What does that passage have to do with actual Jews? The passage refers in so many word to NON-JEWS. Groyper's can't read.
    1
  15. If he does then the case falls apart. Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) ended slavery; implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” You may claim that this all comes from the Tanakh, but if it had remained Jewish, it would not have impacted the world. We couldn't have done it without you, humanly speaking, but you never would have tried it without us.
    1
  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlIjMJBSnRE
    1
  17.  @joshuataylor3550  Leftism is the current oppressor in power. It opposes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. It is the religion of the corporate media and Hollywood and the guiding philosophy of the current administration. The main problem with liberals is that they vote for leftists.
    1
  18.  @StopSettlerViolence  "You are not suppose to enforce your beliefs on anyone and you support Israel for doing this. " We've established that Israel is not doing that. Israel not only has freedom of religion, it is the only nation in the Middle East that does. Speaking of hypocrisy, you want a state of affairs where religious freedom departs from the Levant. One where atheists and agnostics are persecuted and Jews are murdered. You want to destroy the only state in the Middle East where atheists can prosper. The problem of people ceasing to believe in G-d is not that they will believe nothing, but that they will believe ANYTHING. Your statements are incoherent. Apparently, you hate Israel BECAUSE Christians support them. You don't need enlightenment, you need psychiatry.
    1
  19.  @jonathanhosh4459  The safe zones and corridors were in the warning.
    1
  20. "Can you have a gay and lesbian parade in the center of Jerusalem?" You can have one in Tel Aviv. If you try to do one in Jerusalem, the Muslims will riot.
    1
  21. What in the world are you asking? If those are the only two who support Israel? Of course not. How about engaging the arguments?
    1
  22. We DEDUCE the existence of the physical from sensations, which are perceived by our consciousness. Epistemologically, mind PRECEEDS matter. It is perfectly conceivable for consciousness to be aware of nothing but itself. If dualism bothers you, you can be skeptical about matter. We invariably distinguish between REASONED thought and CAUSED thought, rejecting the validity of the latter in principle. If we KNOW a course of thought is a result of (say) a splinter impinging on the brain, we discount it. We ordinarily never allow an exception to this principle. It follows that unless mind starts with mind, all ontology collapses.
    1
  23.  @turntablesrockmyworld9315  You have to assume that they "chose" themselves in order for this charge to stick.
    1
  24.  @josephgee143  Reality is not democratic.
    1
  25. If I were to pick a nit, it would be to remind you that there were Christian Zionists BEFORE Israel came to be and their political support was part of the Balfour Declaration. Hostility to Jews was not universal in Christianity before 1948, and most of the Gentiles helping to hide and smuggle Jews out of Europe were Christians and did it from Christian motives.
    1
  26. " We should expect a ostensibly democratic state to behave better than an authoritarian 3rd world country." And, of course, Israel does. If you contend that our notions of civil rights and peaceful co-existence are internal "members only" rules for liberal democracies, then we had no business hanging the SS heads at Nuremburg. The obvious POINT of number 3 is that it is evil to take the side of the evil over the side of the good. And if you do so, you are not being honest about your claimed motives. Israel is as liberal and peaceful as it can be consistent with its survival in the midst of irrational homicidal hate. What tells the tale, as far as leftist anti-Israel advocacy is concerned is that their prescription for Israel is the same as their prescription for every liberal democracy on the globe. All we have to do to meet leftist approval (they say) is commit suicide, or stand passively aside while they and their co-belligerents destroy us and our allies. We decline to take the advice of those who wish us dead or enslaved.
    1
  27. Only odd if you have lost all faith in analytical thinking.
    1
  28.  @obyone878  I challenge you to produce anything Prager has said that favors or supports racism. I challenge you to produce anything Prager has said that is factually inaccurate (as opposed to something you just don't want to hear). (I'm not holding my breath.)
    1
  29.  @obyone878  ""Radical abolitionist" is literally trying to frame abolitionists as somehow extreme." Do you do English? Using the phrase "Brown dog" does not frame all dogs as somehow brown. The negative aspects of Lee's life which were mentioned were necessary to complete the picture without distorting it. If they had left out those parts, you could plausibly have accused them of distorting history.
    1
  30.  @obyone878  "The concept of a "radical abolitionist" doesn't exist." That is an absurd opinion. In this case it is not a reflection of how completely Brown believed in abolishing slavery. It is a matter of loosing his lid and getting himself and a lot of black folk and other folk killed, not to mention a lot of abolitionists. And if he would have succeeded, he didn't make any provision to limit the breakage. He would have made Sherman's March to the Sea look like the March of Dimes. Lincoln's way worked a lot better than Brown's could have, and it would have worked better still if Lincoln had lived.
    1
  31. Actually, that was a German motto long predating the Nazi regime. The actual Nazi policy toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular was irreconcilably hostile. It is true that Hitler when he was a politician seeking office expressed certain pro-Christian statements. But in his private remarks to his officials he made it clear where he really stood as has been revealed by seized Nazi government documents and the notes of an author who planned to publish a collection of Hitler's remarks at the dinner table. Dr Zoellner and [Catholic Bishop of Munster] Count Galen have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the son of God. That makes me laugh... No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed... True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity... the Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation." — Hans Kerrl, Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, 1937 During the war Alfred Rosenberg formulated a thirty-point program for the National Reich Church, which included: The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches. The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible. The National Church will clear away from its altars all Crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of Saints. On the altars there must be nothing but "Mein Kampf" and to the left of the altar a sword. Prior to the Reichstag vote for the Enabling Act under which Hitler gained legislative powers with which he went on to permanently dismantle the Weimar Republic, Hitler promised the Reichstag on 23 March 1933, that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. However, with power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise. Various historians have written that the goal of the Nazi Kirchenkampf (Church Struggle) entailed not only ideological struggle, but ultimately the eradication of the Churches. However, leading Nazis varied in the importance they attached to the Church Struggle. William Shirer wrote that "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists." During a speech on 27 October 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revealed evidence of Hitler's plan to abolish all religions in Germany, declaring: "Your government has in its possession another document, made in Germany by Hitler’s Government… It is a plan to abolish all existing religions—Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike. The property of all churches will be seized by the Reich and its puppets. The cross and all other symbols of religion are to be forbidden. The clergy are to be forever liquidated, silenced under penalty of the concentration camps, where even now so many fearless men are being tortured because they have placed God above Hitler." Hitler himself possessed radical instincts in relation to the continuing conflict with the Catholic and Protestant Churches in Germany. Though he occasionally spoke of wanting to delay the Church struggle and was prepared to restrain his anti-clericalism out of political considerations, his "own inflammatory comments gave his immediate underlings all the license they needed to turn up the heat in the 'Church Struggle, confident that they were 'working towards the Fuhrer'". According to the Goebbels Diaries, Hitler hated Christianity. In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." In Bullock's assessment, though raised a Catholic, Hitler "believed neither in God nor in conscience", retained some regard for the organizational power of Catholicism, but had contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure". (Bullock wrote.) In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest. — Extract from Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock Writing for Yad Vashem, the historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long-term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion", but that given the prominence of Christianity in Germany, this was necessarily a long-term goal. According to Bullock, Hitler intended to destroy the influence of the Christian churches in Germany after the war. In his memoirs, Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer recalled that when drafting his plans for the "new Berlin", he consulted Protestant and Catholic authorities, but was "curtly informed" by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann that churches were not to receive building sites. Kershaw wrote that, in Hitler's scheme for the Germanization of Eastern Europe, he made clear that there would be "no place in this utopia for the Christian Churches'. Geoffrey Blainey wrote that Hitler and his Fascist ally Mussolini were atheists. "The aggressive spread of atheism in the Soviet Union alarmed many German Christians", wrote Blainey, and with the Nazis becoming the main opponent of Communism in Germany: "[Hitler] himself saw Christianity as a temporary ally, for in his opinion 'one is either a Christian or a German'. To be both was impossible. Nazism itself was a religion, a pagan religion, and Hitler was its high priest... Its high altar [was] Germany itself and the German people, their soil and forests and language and traditions". Nonetheless, a number of early confidants of Hitler detailed the Führer's complete lack of religious belief. One close confidant, Otto Strasser, disclosed in his 1940 book, Hitler and I, that Hitler was a true disbeliever, succinctly stating: Hitler is an atheist.
    1
  32. Yea, even I tend to forget in the face of the unified Israeli response to the attacks that to outside eyes Israel immediately before the attacks appeared to be irreconcilably divided amongst themselves. I suppose they were counting on that division and Biden administration weakness to blunt Israel's response.
    1
  33. "New" atheists are always reasoning in a circle in the same way. They equivocate over their own proprietary definitions of words, which contain their desired conclusion in the defintion, then reason in a circle. Always the same fallacy. "Evidence is natural (within our universe)… god is supernatural (outside our universe). You can’t have evidence (natural) for god (supernatural)" One entity being in one realm does not automatically exclude influence from an entity in another realm. Ukraine exists inside its borders. Russia existed outside Ukraine's borders. It DOES NOT FOLLOW that Russia can't invade Ukraine. EVERYTHING we use the word "supernatural" to refer to ALWAYS means effects within the material/physical world from outside the material/physical. If we would except your definition, then we would have to conclude that God is not supernatural, because the definition of God does not correspond to your definition of the category "supernatural". This is how you know your definition is nonsense. You start by assuming what you're pretending to prove, then reason in a circle. "We can demonstrate the universe wasn't created." Do it. "it is eternal" The current consensus of cosmology is that the Universe, including all matter, energy, and time itself as a physical entity began with the Big Bang tens of billions of years ago. "supernatural is by definition not a part of our universe." If you define "universe" to exclude the non-material/physical, then the supernatural has a part of itself outside the universe. It does not follow that the material/physical cannot be affected by things outside it. If you define "universe" to be all that can be in evidence, then it includes anything that interacts with it, including the supernatural. Again, equivocation over the definition of words never proved a thing in the history of human discourse. "The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics alone disprove creationism." The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe isn't eternal. Laws never disprove legislators. "You aren’t a Physicist, I am." If you were a physicist, you would know that the cosmological consensus is that the universe began.
    1
  34. To view my response you must change the "Sort by" order under the video above to "Newest First".
    1
  35.  @Tenebris_Sint  You already lied that. I already refuted it.
    1
  36. Assertions don't trump arguments. You need a counterargument to refute an argument.
    1
  37.  @jerrybauer1767  I never claimed that faith was an argument. If you are not familiar with the evidence for Theism, that is because you haven't looked. "Judaism was plagarized" At first, the apparent uniqueness of the Bible was cited by atheists as evidence that it was made up. Then when the parallels in the Babylonian texts were discovered, this was taken as evidence that the Bible was derived from other religions. This is an ongoing process. Atheists propose a theory as to how the Bible is bunk. New evidence shows that the old atheist theory was false, but somehow the new evidence is taken as evidence of a NEW theory that the Bible is bunk. If every contradictory wave of evidence leads to the same conclusion, then you're changing your ground and you're not deriving your conclusions from the evidence but imposing your conclusion on the evidence. Atheists, not theists are the ones that keep being driven from their old grounds and having to stake out new grounds. All evidence that can be brought to bear on the question favors the theistic solution. The atheists used to claim that the material/physical was ground of being and that the universe was eternal. Then the Big Bang was discovered and it was found that the material universe BEGAN. If you set the "Sort order" above to "Newest first", you can see an introduction to the evidence for theism in my reply under @cshubs' post.
    1
  38.  Claire Khaw  The Western decline is due to a separation from the Biblical roots of their society. Islam had not worked out well as a basis for society. The problem for Jews is not how Judaism regards Islam, but how Islam regards Jews.
    1
  39. ​ jzherfph chsinkkle  "The bible, like the quran, is mideast TRASH." [sic] Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” "I want all three monotheisms incinerated." So did Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and every other authoritarian regressive atheist jerk in history. "You need a book???" The Bible does clarify some moral laws, but most reasonable people know without it that there is a moral standard and that they fall short of it. The Bible tells you what to do about it.
    1
  40.  Claire Khaw  "Would you like to mention a country in which Islam has failed?" Every Islamic nation is backward intellectually, technologically, economically, and in terms of freedom. This "works" for the despot in power somewhat, but it is hell for everyone else. That is why people, even devout Muslims, jump at any chance to migrate to a western liberal country, and nobody wants to do the reverse.
    1
  41.  Claire Khaw  Sure, Dubai is a pretty place. It is not a free place. Oil money in Islamic OPEC countries tends to aid the despots in their control.
    1
  42. If you will set the "Sort by" order above just below the description to "Newest first" you can see an introduction to the evidence for Theism in my reply under @cshubs's post.
    1
  43.  @rosykatzCATS  Jews what?
    1
  44. An assertion does not counteract an argument. If you have a problem with his case let's hear the problem. "Shut up" doesn't cut any mustard.
    1
  45.  @kresimirzex2720  If Israel wanted genocide of Palestinians it wouldn't have taken 5 years and everybody knows it. It's the most idiotic and pointless lie of all.
    1
  46. He hasn't. The calling of God for the Jews is neither for their merits or to their exclusive benefit.
    1
  47.  @mysteriousman8769  No, the Palestinians are Edomites (1st century name Idumeans) and Egyptians. The bulk of the Caananites were wiped out or dispersed in the conquests of Joshua or David, or the conquests of the Persians and Greeks. Tyre was a holdout coastal city of the Phillistines, a Caananite tribe which in turn were a subset of the Phonecian culture. The Caananites are no more.
    1
  48. "The world" has done no such thing. The "world courts" are the minions of a coalition of corrupt despotic governments. The mafia bosses have voted against those who defied them. Your response to arguments is an appeal to a corrupt authority.
    1
  49.  @mariahewitt9787  What does that passage have to do with actual Jews? The passage refers in so many word to NON-JEWS. Groyper's can't read. There is not a shred of Biblical support for your hostility toward Jews. The Bible condemns such an attitude throughout: Genesis 12:3 John 4:20-24 and the definitive treatise on the proper Christian attitude toward Jews: Romans 9-11.
    1
  50. "The gospels blame the Jews" It's the gospels that record that the Romans executed Jesus. Christian theology says MAN'S SIN necessitated the crucifixion. It is not in Israel's or Jews' interest to cultivate across-the-board enmity and suspicion of Christianity. I am, of course, aware of a long history of Christian (mostly Catholic) persecution of Jews. But today Protestant evangelicals are the only external bloc of friends Israel or Jews have, and to have Jews react to their friends as to enemies will only make things easier for their (largely OUR) real enemies. Not all Zionists were or are Jews, and Christian Zionists had a hand in the restoration of Israel. We are the main reason that antisemitism has less of a free hand in the US than elsewhere. Go to your local Holocaust museum and see who was hiding Jews from the SS in occupied Europe. (Most Protestants in those days were what would now be called evangelical.) Neither is it a coincidence that the US, with the highest proportion of evangelicals in the West, is the first nation that recognized Israel and is the UN member state that votes against all of those nastygram "resolutions" the riff-raff keep hurling at Israel, and supports Israel's defense with vouchers for the purchase of American weapons. By dint of education, personal history, and personal interest I am quite knowledgeable about Christian theology and our Bible. There is no such teaching as you imagine and the New Testament is not hostile to Jews. It is regarded as heretical by Rabbinical Judaism, but that's another matter. The existence and flourishing of Israel is an agreeable development to Christian eschatology, for reasons which I suppose would not interest you. I have grown used to the fact that a major pastime of enthusiastic non-evangelical dilettantes is explaining my religion to me as to a child. One develops a thick skin. If our existence offends you, that is no reason to project a reciprocal sentiment onto us. A major charity to which Christians contribute is The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews which, as one might suspect, is a Charity whereby Christians give humanitarian aid to Jews in situ wherever and help them migrate to Israel from places where they suffer hardship. Aside from US military aid, US Christians are materially and politically supporting Jews and Israel in many ways, and the only Jew that deigns to notice is Dennis Prager. I am not so knowledgeable about the demographic situation in Europe, etc., but in the US, support for Israel correlates strongly with conservative-evangelical-Republican, while hostility to Israel correlates with leftist-atheist-Democrat, even among ethnic Jews. Surely a supporter of Israel has noticed being embraced by Republican presidents and shunned by Democrat ones? Knowing who one's friends are is both a mental health and a survival skill. It is timely to cultivate this, because the mid-term forecast is for rough weather, for us as well as for Jews.
    1