Today I did some light reading, specifically ‘New Religions and the Nazis (1st Ed.), by Karla Poewe, after having prepared a breakfast of eggs Florentino with Hollandaise sauce, turkey bacon, and a side of pumpernickel toast with boysenberry jam. This was obviously accompanied with squeezed grapefruit juice to drink and an espresso made of Kopi luwak coffee. Aaaah! Nothing like some crappy coffee to wash down the topic of Naziism and religion!
Anyway, Poewe explores the relationship between new religious movements and the Nazis. The book itself delves into the emergence of new religious elements within Nazi ideology, shedding light on how Naziism incorporated aspects of a quasi-religious belief system - an intersection of politics and spirituality, so to speak.
Taking a page from Dopey Dan, I lift an Amazon book review and paste it here (unaccredited, of course)
“By fusing politics, religion, theology, Indo-Aryan metaphysics, literature and Darwinian science they intended to craft a new, genuinely German faith-based political community. What emerged instead was an anti-Semitic totalitarian political regime known as National Socialism. Looking at modern paganism as well as the established Church, Karla Poewe reveals that the new religions founded in the pre-Nazi and Nazi years, especially Jakob Hauer’s German Faith Movement, present a model for how German fascism distilled aspects of religious doctrine into political extremism.”
Dr. Shades is, naturally, correct in his assertion. And Dopey Dan is wrong, naturally, in his deflection. Another devastating blow to Mopologetics is struck by Dr. Shades!
- Doc
Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
- Doctor CamNC4Me
- God
- Posts: 9074
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am
Re: Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Re: Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 4:39 pmToday I did some light reading, specifically ‘New Religions and the Nazis (1st Ed.), by Karla Poewe, after having prepared a breakfast of eggs Florentino with Hollandaise sauce, turkey bacon, and a side of pumpernickel toast with boysenberry jam. This was obviously accompanied with squeezed grapefruit juice to drink and an espresso made of Kopi luwak coffee. Aaaah! Nothing like some crappy coffee to wash down the topic of Naziism and religion!
Anyway, Poewe explores the relationship between new religious movements and the Nazis. The book itself delves into the emergence of new religious elements within Nazi ideology, shedding light on how Naziism incorporated aspects of a quasi-religious belief system - an intersection of politics and spirituality, so to speak.
Taking a page from Dopey Dan, I lift an Amazon book review and paste it here (unaccredited, of course)
“By fusing politics, religion, theology, Indo-Aryan metaphysics, literature and Darwinian science they intended to craft a new, genuinely German faith-based political community. What emerged instead was an anti-Semitic totalitarian political regime known as National Socialism. Looking at modern paganism as well as the established Church, Karla Poewe reveals that the new religions founded in the pre-Nazi and Nazi years, especially Jakob Hauer’s German Faith Movement, present a model for how German fascism distilled aspects of religious doctrine into political extremism.”
Dr. Shades is, naturally, correct in his assertion. And Dopey Dan is wrong, naturally, in his deflection. Another devastating blow to Mopologetics is struck by Dr. Shades!
- Doc
This can’t be true. Dan needs lack of belief in God to be the direct cause of so much human pain and suffering.
Otherwise he can’t equate the sins of religion to the sins of secular society. He doesn’t want to live in a world where the lack of religion is a form of progress and fosters human wellbeing.
Dan is a walking posterchild for the confirmation bias fallacy.
- Everybody Wang Chung
- God
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am
Re: Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
Re: Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
Your channeling of Dan-The-Plagiarist (and what he {theoretically} eats) is nothing short of perfection. Thank you for making me laugh out loud.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 4:39 pmToday I did some light reading, specifically ‘New Religions and the Nazis (1st Ed.), by Karla Poewe, after having prepared a breakfast of eggs Florentino with Hollandaise sauce, turkey bacon, and a side of pumpernickel toast with boysenberry jam. This was obviously accompanied with squeezed grapefruit juice to drink and an espresso made of Kopi luwak coffee. Aaaah! Nothing like some crappy coffee to wash down the topic of Naziism and religion!
Anyway, Poewe explores the relationship between new religious movements and the Nazis. The book itself delves into the emergence of new religious elements within Nazi ideology, shedding light on how Naziism incorporated aspects of a quasi-religious belief system - an intersection of politics and spirituality, so to speak.
Taking a page from Dopey Dan, I lift an Amazon book review and paste it here (unaccredited, of course)
“By fusing politics, religion, theology, Indo-Aryan metaphysics, literature and Darwinian science they intended to craft a new, genuinely German faith-based political community. What emerged instead was an anti-Semitic totalitarian political regime known as National Socialism. Looking at modern paganism as well as the established Church, Karla Poewe reveals that the new religions founded in the pre-Nazi and Nazi years, especially Jakob Hauer’s German Faith Movement, present a model for how German fascism distilled aspects of religious doctrine into political extremism.”
Dr. Shades is, naturally, correct in his assertion. And Dopey Dan is wrong, naturally, in his deflection. Another devastating blow to Mopologetics is struck by Dr. Shades!
- Doc
- Dr. Shades
- Founder and Visionary
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mormon apologists' simplistic and often wrong reading of history
Aww, shucks, Doctor CamNC4Me! You're a sweetheart!!Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 4:39 pmDr. Shades is, naturally, correct in his assertion. And Dopey Dan is wrong, naturally, in his deflection. Another devastating blow to Mopologetics is struck by Dr. Shades!
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024