(November 10, 2023 at 5:14 pm)Istvan Wrote:(November 10, 2023 at 5:05 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Of course. That's why @Ahriman's definition is both self-invented and self-serving, and need not be regarded as valid support for his point.
Okay. But in that case are we supposed to believe that religious art throughout history wasn't simply meant to inspire belief or reverence, but rather was deliberately intended to suppress information that refuted the idea that God exists?
No. But it can be regarded as propaganda in the sense that it may be one-sided in its portrayal of the religion itself. Or it could be propaganda for other ideas while dressed in religious garb -- for instance, the depiction of Christ as a white man could certainly be seen as racial propaganda, especially in antebellum America where nonwhites were enslaved or otherwise viciously repressed. I'd say it's a case-by-case thing.
