Some people think that it is a waste of time to read literature that advocates ideas that are contrary to the Bible. They say that we should be focused on the truth and that we don't need to be informed about false ideas or beliefs. What do you think about this? I was thinking about this because some Christian families use the classical education model to home school their children and other Christian families think that the classical education model is pagan because much of the literature studied in that education model advocates ideas that are contrary to the Bible.
Waste of time to read certain kinds of literature
- Thread starter Volts
- Start date
Caledvwlch
New member
Sounds like bad advice.
Last edited:
Know your enemy.
Buzzword
New member
This.
If you never branch out and consider another person's point of view, you not only will never allow yourself to grow, but you REALLY (moreso than normal) have no right to criticize their beliefs.
This applies both to reading literature and getting out of the house to meet people in person.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
-Mark Twain
The Berean
Well-known member
I've been a reader all my life. I enjoy reading all types of literary genre. I have a fondness for the American novel, especially. Jack London and Mark Twain are two of my favorites. I can read their novels and enjoy them. I can separate their literary genius from their nonsense personal views on other subjects like God and Christianity (London was an atheist and Twain had religious views all over the map).
PureX
Well-known member
Well, using the Bible as a guide to try and fix your car would be pretty stupid. So clearly, there are lots and lots and lots of subjects to which the Bible and religion DO NOT apply. And to just ignore all these because they don't serve your religious beliefs would be a very stupid thing to do.
Also, assuming that we already know 'the truth' is a great way of making sure that we remain ignorant of it. Because no human knows the whole truth. And no human knows how much of the truth they are as yet unaware of. So we need to always be open to learning new things if we are indeed interested in learning 'the truth'. And we can't do that if we already think we know it all.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Wise as serpents and innocent as doves. There are ways of protecting young minds from destructive doctrines without totally sheltering them. I think of Moses and Daniel and each of them were some of the best educated (in Egyptian and Babylonian understanding) but they were subject to God.
Personally, I think it's less the "what" you learn as "how" it is taught.
PureX
Well-known member
Also, a faith that has to hide from knowledge is a very weak and pointless faith, anyway. It doesn't deserve to be 'protected'.
shagster01
New member
I agree with what you are getting at, but I'd hardly call a car repair book "literature".
What he said.
Not to mention we need to be able to understand the language we are reading, not just basically, but intricately, so as to understand what is being communicated. This includes, but is not limited to, grammar, idioms and the use of all figures of speech.
:thumb:
I went to a Christian high school and I was informed about different religious groups such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. I was taught what was wrong with them and how to witness with them. The faculty wanted to warn us about them because those groups preach a false gospel.
Caledvwlch
New member
That sounds familiar. Although our curriculum was pretty harsh to Catholics as well. But what does that have to do with literature? You mean, like pamphlets?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
If all you know is what is wrong with some group, you can start to see that everywhere - including in places it doesn't fit. All the wrong doctrines have contexts amongst the right ones. Some are more blatant, others far subtler than many can grasp.
Take medicine, as an analogy. If all you are taught is symptoms of disease, you'll see disease everywhere - even in places it doesn't exist. A baby, for example, can run a fever when cutting teeth. Does that mean they are sick? No, it simply means the body is reacting to something (an event, in this case). But if someone is taught to treat every fever the same way, they won't understand it properly. All they see is the bad (fever) without the broader (good) context (cutting teeth). To be picky, the fever itself isn't really bad - it's actually the body's way of fighting invaders.
You need to know how everything fits together before you can properly deal with defective operation.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Absolutely true! As long as by that you mean the faith itself more than those holding it. Those who believe something is true (and it is) may not themselves be ready to deal with onslaughts. That doesn't deny the truth of the faith itself, it merely means the adherent isn't equipped to address all implications of it.
PureX
Well-known member
Faith is not truth, and faith is not the blind pretense of truth, either. Faith is a way of responding to our not knowing the truth. Faith is trusting in an idea that we hope to be true, but don't know to be true.
I remember reading parts of the Book of Mormon and the New World Translation to see what it contradicted orthodox Christian doctrine.
Caledvwlch
New member
Really challenging yourself there.