Logic and religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spheroid400
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Said the Jewish were occupying his country. The peoples loves him. How is love revenge on the genocide people? They loved adored him. All sources tell this side of things
 
Last edited:
Spheroid400 said:
Said the Jewish were occupying his country. The peoples loves him. How is love revenge on the genocide people? They loved adored him. All sources tell this side of things
Click to expand...
so what if the Jews were living in Germany? They were German, they were born there. They didn’t invade or take over the country. They were no threat to the country or the people, regardless what Hitler and his cronies said. They LIED! A just war can not be built on lies.

Not everyone loved Hitler. You need to read more history. In fact, most just feared him. Only those in his political circle ‘loved him’. The average German didn’t know squat about Hitler except what they saw in their news reports. The average German had no problems with their Jewish neighbors. But he did instill a sense of national pride in the German people following the horrible armistice of WWI. A national pride felt by gasp German Jews. Yes, German Jews also supported Hitler… at first. So yes, at first many people loved Hitler. That didn’t last long. But once he had power there was little the average person could do. Unless you wanted your family wiped out along with your Jewish neighbors.

But love of a leader doesn’t mean you can make war and it will be a just war.

No matter how you try and slice it. Hitler’s war wasn’t just under any circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I agree that about lies.
but at time, German loved him.
rest is propoganda after war by jews who were the killed and the survivor.
said Jews made life misery in germany for the poor.
took and hoarded money.
they believed this if not even true.
you check sources. all i’ve heard and read say its true.
proof of double relativism.
 
Spheroid400 said:
rest is propoganda after war by jews who were the killed and the survivor.

said Jews made life misery in germany for the poor.

took and hoarded money.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying that this was what the Nazi leadership was saying that the Jews were doing to hurt Germany?

Or are you saying the Jews were actually hurting Germany and this was covered up after the war?

I can’t check info if I’m not sure what you are saying.
 
Said proof of double relativism.
Propoganda from both sides.
Maybe the correct one may be falsity the second one
 
Spheroid400 said:
Said proof of double relativism.

Propoganda from both sides.

Maybe the correct one may be falsity the second one
Click to expand...
so what if there was propaganda from both sides. Facts are still facts. The facts are that Hitler had no just cause to go to war. What did France or Poland do to Germany to justify their invasion? That’s not relativism that is blatant aggression.

the Allies went to war to stop German aggression. That is a fact. Stopping an aggressor is just cause for making war. Unless you believe that you should stand by and watch while someone is murdered.
 
do have papers proving that axixes power had evil intent,
aside from what you believe their group did?
letters. etc. not forged. testimony that proves evil, i mean that.
 
If you ever need to use the word ‘assume’ when forming a deduction it is not logic.

“Religion is derived from earlier written texts which in Christianity is the Bible.” That is fact. That is logic.

“(We assume) the Bible is the Word of God”.
There is no logic that could ever say “The Bible = the Word of God”. (If anyone has a logical proof, please post.)

Therefore logic dictates that Christianity and logic should never mix.
 
Not sure what you are trying to say but the example you give is wrong. Christianity does not derive from the Bible, though granted, certain Christians use it that way, but the Bible is just her holy scripture, inspired by God. It is right to say it is the word of God, seen from that context, as the contents are inspired by God.
 
Reuben_J said:
It is right to say it is the word of God, seen from that context, as the contents are inspired by God.
Click to expand...
But is it logically accurate to make the claim the Bible is the word of God if it is (only) inspired by God?

Monet was inspired by the lake with the lilies. Was what he produced truly the lake?
 
Jesus was son of God.
He is also God.
One who receives him receives one who sent him.God.
Is that derived from?
 
Don’t know whether it’s logic or not but since the content of the Bible is God inspired, meaning that the words (the meaning/message) written therein come from God, not from the authors, therefore it can be said the word of God. If your secretary writes your letter which you dictate to her, then it can be said the letter comes from you. That would be a closer example.
 
Reuben_J said:
If your secretary writes your letter which you dictate to her, then it can be said the letter comes from you. That would be a closer example.
Click to expand...
I dictate “Please can you ensure that section 4 clause 1 of the contract regarding share purchases is verified”
My secretary writes “Check the bit in the agreement about people wanting to buy the company”

Do you think I would sign it?
 
This means the Scriptures are rolled out logically?
They ARE SYSTEMATIC!
 
Spheroid400 said:
  1. Jesus was son of God.
  2. He is also God.
  3. One who receives him receives one who sent him.God.
Is that derived from?
Click to expand...
2 => 3 is quasi (kind of) logical based on the assumption that Jesus is God. However language and logic do not allow for a person to be a son of themselves. Metaphysics allows for it but logic does not.
 
Last edited:
TheButler said:
I dictate “Please can you ensure that section 4 clause 1 of the contract regarding share purchases is verified”

My secretary writes “Check the bit in the agreement about people wanting to buy the company”

Do you think I would sign it?
Click to expand...
When Jesus said, Let he amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone? Was that a logical conclusion to his you must forgive “Argument” which was also a command?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top