In your opinion, what differentiates religious literature from religious propaganda?

Answer 1

It's the same.

It's all attempts to pull emotional strings to get people to believe in old superstitions in the absense of any supporting real evidence.

Answer 2

Good example is the Old Testament and the New Testament. The OT is written in poetic form, a true masterpeice of divinity when read in the orignal hebrew. That is literature, it is not meant (and by most observant Jews is not) to be taken as literal. It uses Allegory and fables to explain the world, and to tell a history of a people in an alliterative way. The NT would be a good example of the opposite. Coarse and strident, it is (so we are told) to be taken literally as throwing out the old. While the OT is wrapped in mystery that requires years of study and a deep immersion in the literature, the NT is brash, in your face and easily accessible by the masses. Most people who perscribe to the NT idea that it is a revision of the OT, that it negates rabbinical law, don't understand this distinction. The OT is a horrible, terrible story if you take it literally, but then you're not supposed to. Those who follow the NT do however, take it literally, and assume that's the correct reading of the OT as well. The truth is Jesus was a Jew, an attempted reformer of the temple system which had become corrupt. In the end, he only wanted to help Judaism, not start a new religion. This is the difference between literature and propaganda. The OT requires thought and study, the NT brazenly calls people to action.

Answer 3

By definition, propaganda is a message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people; often deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies. Propaganda techniques include glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, appealing, and simple slogans.

"Religious literature" covers a wide ground of writing which does not INTEND to prosyletize.

There is a deep spirituality in works such as "Walden" by Thoreau or "Leaves of Grass" by Whitman, but neither author is beating the drum for a particular religion.

Answer 4

Yes, Rustic that is (sorry) rather obvious:D And it is for these sort of things that bloodless surgery is becoming more and more acceptable. There are ways to supplement blood from greater loss such as the way operations are performed - with minimal cartilage damage which in turn means less blood loss. The way a patient lies down is another way to help with blood loss. You might want to take a look at our wonderful dvd on bloodless surgery. And yes, what we say about bloodless surgery is supported by science and actually is in the dvd. My study was telling me the time when she was severally anaemic and they wanted to give her a transfusion, but could not because her blood group is too rare and it would kill her. So they injected her with iron and it obviously worked because she was the one who related this to me. Take for example your illustration of the gunshot victim. Normally, they need instant help ie at the scene of the crime. Well if doctors or who ever were attending knew of bloodless surgery, they can immediately put it into effect - like putting pressure on the wound or putting the victim in a position that will cause the blood to go back into the body. However, how could this happen if only ever blood transfusions were the thing? It takes time to get the equipment and there is no time!! So, yes bloodless surgery is safest. You talk about US blood, but that is just in one country - what about Africa where aids is rampant? Actually you are wrong saying comparing the risk of aids to the toilet seat, because blood is easily effected once out side the body. There are bloodless surgeries popping up every where and we are so happy about this.

Answer 5

It's in the way it is written and presented. Literature offers room for the reader to relate and make a personal choice in regard to what they have read.

Propaganda is designed to actively sway the opinion of the reader.

Answer 6

Propaganda must be designed to cause an emotional reaction in the reader/viewer and manipulate them to a point of view based upon that.

Not all religious lit follows this pattern.

Answer 7

Religious literature becomes propaganda when it starts to demonises other faiths (& different sects of that faith) suggesting it's POV is the only "TRUE" religions (etc etc etc)

Answer 8

Literature is informative. It will tell me the facts about the religion. It will tell me what is good about their beliefs and why they believe the way they do.
Propaganda is meant to scare and make one feel guilty. It may not even tell me much about the religion. It will tell me why I need to join, and it will tell me what is wrong with me.

Answer 9

It depends, are you for that religion or against it?

For= Literature
Against= Propaganda

I think if people embraced the "P word" a little more, they wouldn't succumb to it quite so easily.

Answer 10

The one that states facts is literature.
The one that states opinion with the intent to sway you into the author's way of thinking, is propaganda.

Answer 11

Any religious literature IS progaganda.