Comments by "" (@DannyAGray) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. I love when other people tell me what I supposedly think, especially when they don't know other people like me. That's not the definition of ignorant at all.
    294
  2. +OveRelevant not necessarily. lusting after something is more than just being attracted. Lusting would be more like coveting, obsessing over, always thinking about, and even physically acting on (masturbatory acts). Think of Christ saying it this way: "if you're already thinking about the positions you would do her in, you've already committed the act in your heart, which is just as real as physical." attraction is a totally different thing.
    27
  3. Good job, CJ, but you need to get the teleprompter close to the camera; you look like you're staring WAY out of the way instead of to the viewer.
    9
  4.  @rohantime5938  I think your initial statement says everything there is to say about your ignorance. Of course PragerU is not an actual university; that was never in question. But the fact that you think it is shows the very problem you have. I think, perhaps you don't know enough about this channel and the variety of thought that occurs on it. But that's the whole point of a university: to have variety of thought! Not to censor or control, but to let everyone speak. In case you haven't been on a college campus lately, most campuses don't allow said variety. Perhaps you need to calm down and investigate more slowly and see what there is to learn. Calm down a little.
    8
  5. Also, his defense went to prove that he was a strong defense of the law he was under, even if he struggled with how the crown was treating the colonies. He was fair in his practice of the law and didn't succumb to his passions but stood for truth and what was right. He was hated for defending the regulars in trial, but he prevailed and his honor gained him mad respect.
    7
  6. Like CHOP or CHAZ in Portland? That didn't really work out so well.
    4
  7. How so?
    3
  8. Thank you for adding "LDS-ism" to your Christian list.
    3
  9. Become a truck driver. I make that much in 2 weeks, plus I'll never be forced out of the market because more drivers are needed all the time, and you have to be a US citizen to get a CDL.
    3
  10. and I suppose you've never used the phrase "that's MY wife/girlfriend/mom/sister/friend/etc"... People could very easily be seen as property in the ways that (1)you have a closer relationship to them than a stranger, and so you each owe more to each other (at least consideration) than a stranger, and (2) you both expect the other to be loyal. Granted, you don't sell these relationships to other people, but you do balance your lease with them on your own loyalties and ideas.
    2
  11. I love Dennis. God bless him forever.
    2
  12. @RodMartinJr  then what are you saying? Because that passage says nothing about Jesus or Mary. In fact, it seems that God is talking to a snake about its offspring and Eve's child. Jesus is not mentioned.
    2
  13. Bountiful, Utah is actually a really beautiful town! My wife and I go around there every weekend.
    2
  14. And at UC Berkley at that!
    2
  15.  @pastycayk1998  what video on this channel is pro-slavery??? I haven't seen that one.
    2
  16.  @zfloyd1627 ..............wtf are you talking about? Who are you? This party was over like....3 years ago...
    1
  17.  @zfloyd1627  wow... sounds like you need some nappy time. You're very cranky.
    1
  18. How can you consider inner peace higher than values? The world is drowning in people who want to tear you down at any point. If you VALUE your own pace of mind, you will work for inner peace. Same with outward peace: society fights against itself on issues like racism. But if you VALUE peace, you're more likely to look past race and try to bring people together. Peace - inner or outer - is great, but you have to value it to make it happen.
    1
  19. +Angie Maxwell you say Adam used free choice to disobey God. This is not true, and if you bear with me I'm happy to explain: God gave Adam and Eve TWO commandments: multiply and replenish the earth was the first, the second being to not not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." but it wasn't death, as in being no more, it meant no longer being immortal. It meant a spiritual death, and being made vulnerable to the effects of life. so here's the kicker: ONLY in the state of mortality could Adam and Eve been able to have children - to multiply and replenish. so, in other words, they could not obey the first commandment without going against the second, and they couldn't obey the second without disregarding the first. God obviously knew this when he gave them both commandments, and that's not to say he set them up for failure, since he gave them their agency. But Adam and Eve knew God had a plan, and they knew they had to choose to accomplish His plan. In reality, they did not disobey, and so it was not a sin; it was a calculated, intellectual transgression to forsake one command for a greater one.
    1
  20. Who are you to assume the universe is not perfect, or was not made perfect?
    1
  21. +Ismaïl Yahyaoui Idrissi why do you need religion? Let's see: do you believe it's good to kill people? If you don't believe it's good, then you believe in a moral code of conduct, which is a religion in and of itself, because you believe in respecting, sustaining, and obeying that moral code. so... You really already have religion. congratulations.
    1
  22. You and I could go in circles forever like this. The dictionary has nothing about prejudice when it comes to the word Phobia. Phobia is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear or aversion to something." Hatred may, I suppose, be synonymous, but it is not the definition of phobia. In regards to religion, I could give you absolute proof and example, but if you refuse to acknowledge it I can't force you to accept it. Most religions have some element of lie to them, but that doesn't mean their doctrine or gospel is flawed completely. Darwin Claimed human evolution was science. But he had no answer for the starting point of religion and even conceded to a godly force. Science claims global warming, which is really just a religion paid for and bought off by George Soros and Al Gore, and is clearly proven to be false. Science of all kind now supports the existence of God - or at least a divinely controlling factor - in areas like physics, chemistry, astonomy, etc.But, again, if you refuse to acknowledge it, you will only see error in my statements
    1
  23. Jordan Richardson how could the serpent have tricked Eve? God gave Adam and Eve two commandments, and they could not hand obeyed one without ignoring the other. Eve realized this was true and chose to follow the higher commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (whereas they were only in the garden at the time, and could not procreate). Lucifer told her there was no other way to accomplish this except by eating the fruit. This is not trickery, it's informative. "Adam fell that man might be. Men are that they might have joy"
    1
  24. Idiot atheist it's a basic understanding of the creation story. A little reading and research never hurt anyone. 😀
    1
  25. Idiot atheist this is just one of my favorite verses from the Book of Mormon (yes, I'm LDS). But any scholar will tell you that Adam and Eve were unable to procreate in the garden in their immortal state. they had to fall. God gave them a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, something they could not do until they ate the fruit. By not eating the fruit, they would have disobeyed this command. Then read genesis 3:4-7. It vaguely describes the effects of the fruit, etc etc.
    1
  26. Yeah... he got most of it wrong.
    1
  27. Jesus is not once mentioned in the Old Testament.
    1
  28.  @RodMartinJr  so what you're telling me is that you believe copies of copies of copies of unknown authors took Hebrew scrolls, examined them for content, and applied their friend to some passages to imply connections and prophecies so that future people could believe said friend was great?
    1
  29. Sinderro Luminoso = The Shining Path (terrorist insurgent group) Thank you JAG season 1!
    1
  30. Jesus Christ is never once mentioned in the Torah or the rest of the Old Testament
    1
  31. ​ @MikeDindu only through Christian eyes does it do this. Non-Christians would strongly disagree. The OT never mentions Jesus.
    1
  32.  @ianbds6436  the Old Testament never once mentions Jesus Christ
    1
  33. This isn't about what PragerU puts out, y'all. 2001 was a much simpler time. And even though the media has never been perfect, it was definitely way more transparent when it all happened. You can think of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory as much as you can about Pearl Harbor or the civil war, WWII, etc., but that only diminishes the lives lost. Don't be dumb like that.
    1
  34. Why is any patent tolerating this? Maybe i should take a bunch of strippers and hookers to an elementary school, just to see if the school is actually gonna be all-inclusive in this filth.
    1
  35. I didn't give a damn about boys and girls at age 8. We just played. None of that stuff mattered. If anything, I believe it's the parents pushing it on the kids.
    1
  36.  @prophetsamalualojp9279  that is honestly the most disgusting comment I've seen on here. I seriously hope this person doesn't take your "blessing" seriously. You're nothing but a troll.
    1
  37. These are interesting perspectives, but they still make me cringe at their misinterpretations.
    1
  38.  @Lerian_V  for starters, this dude is maintaining the idea of "original sin" and Adam and Eve somehow being selfish. That couldn't be farther from the truth! God gave Adam and Eve two contradicting commandments: to multiply and fill the earth with offspring, and to not eat the fruit of the tree of life. If Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, they couldn't bear children, thus disobeying the first commandment; but they couldn't fulfill the first commandment without disregarding the second. It was not sin on their part since they were told to do it; it was a choice... and it was the RIGHT choice. Second, Noah didn't just take two of every animal. I thought that was well-known, but apparently this dude doesn't know his own Bible. Noah took more - naturally - for food and for the need of ensuring they could procreate after. Those are just two examples.
    1
  39.  @Lerian_V  knowledge is the power of discernment through experience and wisdom. Also, why do you reference the end of chapter 6 without also referencing the beginning of chapter 7, where Noah is told to bring 7 (whether individuals but more likely as pairs) of some animals? Additionally, Noah is told to bring every kind of food, which likely included animal meats; so additional animals would have been needed as part of their diet.
    1
  40.  @Lerian_V  the bishop's position is that Adam and Eve take on an almost arrogant position that they want to choose their own way and, somehow putting themselves before God, eat the fruit. That's not the case at all! Adam and Eve didn't sin, let alone were they selfish or haughty about it. God gave the couple their first commandment - before forbidding the fruit - to multiply and fill the earth. This was of greater importance (being first) and yet impossible in their garden existence. They couldn't procreate or process. To not eat the fruit and not procreate would be to not observe that first commandment; whereas to eat the fruit is not observing the second. While it looks like a lose-lose scenario, it was actually just a choice. Because of this it makes it not a sin but instead a transgression, which is to say that either choice has consequence. The bishop's position is that this choice - to follow a clear commandment from God to multiply and replenish the earth - was a sin, the original or cardinal/carnal sin. But how can it be sin if God commanded it? I also take issue with the application of "original sin" being applied to all people and needing to be cleaned of it - including innocent babies - lest one be condemned to hell... but that's a topic for another time I suppose.
    1
  41.  @Lerian_V  if you're asking what the tree represents, the fruit is the light of Christ, the power and ability to discern right from wrong and face objection and struggle. Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve had no struggle - no hardship or evil - and so they could never progress. After the fruit, they were able to be aware of the world and themselves, seeing that they were naked and considering it a shame (because Satan told them it was shameful and they had to hide). God even says as much, remarking that they were now "like us, knowing good and evil." (I love this line because it demonstrates that God was not alone but was with other gods, namely Christ himself) God then blocks the way to the tree of life so that Adam and Eve wouldn't become exalted like God in their state of feeling shame (their "fallen" state) and live in that shame forever. I got a little off track there, but in a nutshell, the tree is the ability to discern good from evil and to become living beings.
    1
  42.  @Lerian_V  again, the bishop is asserting that Adam and Eve are choosing themselves over God, and that's simply not the case. Even in the clip that you provided (and I did back it up some so I could get the full context) he's claiming that Adam and Eve were thinking about themselves. But God gave them a commandment, and the only way to meet that commandment was, in fact, to TRANSgress (to not move backwards in sin, but to go on the parallel path forward) and eat the fruit. Additionally, how can their clothes be a manifestation of their self consciousness - as the bishop says - if God was the one that provides them with the skins to be clothed in? God straight up wanted them clothed. I mean, God went out of his way to tell them they'd have to work for their food, and struggle with parenting (which was not a curse on Eve, by the way - God was just telling her what life will be like as a mother); He could have just as easily told them to stay naked. But He specifically clothed them. To say being clothed was a recognition of their shame is inconsistent with God's actions toward them.
    1
  43.  @Lerian_V  I understand the idea of original sin, but I don't support it or believe in it. In fact, I think the belief in original sin as doctrine is evil, disgusting, and based on a misunderstanding of scripture.
    1
  44.  @Lerian_V  thank you for granting me permission to believe what I want. I've been waiting for your permission my whole life. 🙄🙄 By the way, the doctrine of "original sin" in the catholic church is less than 400 years old, dating only since post-Renaissance, and the overwhelming majority of catholic beliefs only go back to the 1200s. So your interpretation of the church isn't even original to its own beliefs.
    1
  45.  @Lerian_V  that is not an accurate historical account of catholicism. The doctrine of original sin is fairly new, and most of catholic teaching is biblically heretical.... which is ironic since catholic monks bastardized and changed the Bible to suit them and made it a whore of itself. The catholic church is exactly what Christ spoke against. It'll be a wonderful day when the savior returns and dismantles it.
    1
  46.  @soniamartin2007  apparently you've never met a catholic because to say a protestant could be more arrogant than a catholic is someone laughable. In fact, I'd be willing to submit than anyone being more arrogant than a catholic is dammed near impossible. That being said, the catholic church knows it didn't work by the power of the Holy Ghost. I'm pretty sure the Holy Ghost didn't tell the catholic church to alter scripture and doctrine, when the commoners started being able to read the word of God, in order to control them. This is historical fact: that the right hand Satan uses to touch himself - the Popes - didn't like how commoners could understand scripture and had the monks and cardinals change scriptures over night. Then of course you have the people of Satan's left hand, whom he uses to touch little boys - the bishops and priests - who were ready to excommunicate anyone who disagreed with the Popes. Honestly, Sonia, this stuff isn't tough to know when you just do a pinch of research. This is all admitted by the catholic church itself.
    1
  47.  @soniamartin2007  Luther was a much a hag as every pope that ever existed. He altered scripture just like the catholics did. But the catholic church is the worst offender. They've skewed the word of God to fit their own desires, and in so doing they mock God. Blasphemousfrom the start. The catholic church has no power in God's priesthood and no authority in His kingdom. It'll be a wonderful day when the lord destroys that whore of a church.
    1
  48. This maybe the first Prager video I down thumb. The premise was spars to be far-left and fast-right, but Will only focused on extreme left but not extreme right. Poor presentation.
    1
  49. I like Will, but I feel like PragerU is becoming only about him. It's getting annoying.
    1
  50. That seems hard to do when medical technology changes and is even subjective. And if a candidate is constantly crying for appeal, saying they were cheated (as they all claim now to some extent or another), we the people will never hear the end of it.
    1