Is Secular Literature Evil?

[NiceneCreed]

Im not sure what that book is about, is that a commentary ? The TITLE does not sit well with me, and seems like a waste of time.

Because you said

Secular literature includes anything that is non-biblical, essentially.Therefore, I suppose commentaries or dictionaries may be viewed as secular. However , I was referring to secular sources which may provide information about the cultural settings surrounding biblical society and/or provides geographical information about biblical locations (Not necessarily commentaries in either case), but, is nonetheless, secular.


So if you intended to talk more about the men's Commentaries , that attack God, then i can see the evil word fits i guess.


But if Dawkins is about a commentary using secular history to attack God, I'm not sure I have no intention of reading that book.

I wish you would have highlighted where I put into parenthetical citations: (Not necessarily commentaries in either case). Anyway, secular literature is anything that is non-biblical, so 'secular literature' is a pretty broad term.

 

[NiceneCreed]

Secular literature is only evil if it is evil based on its own merit.

So if a secular book contained pornographic material which tempted an individual to lust, that would not be considered evil because literature is not evil of its own merit? I hope I am not putting words into your mouth, but it seems that is what you are trying to say. I apologize if I misunderstand.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I did not say not evil I said it is evil if it contains evil.

 

[NiceneCreed]

I did not say not evil I said it is evil if it contains evil.

Okay, now I understand. So the question is this: Given the fact you are aware there exists secular literature with contents that are contrary to what God teaches us, do you think there is any good secular literature, or, at least, some good we can derive even from the bad secular literature?

 

[Kingdom_Mystic]

We must remember that many of the neoplatonist ideas that the church fathers used to define the nature of Christ were based on pre Christian authors. These ideas persist today as a way greats like Saint Augustine used to interpret scripture. Theologians though out the ages have used secular sources to understand God's truth in Scripture. Scripture even like in Jude quoting the Book of Enoch has used non canon literature. It has been said "all truth is God's truth." In the end we should use the Wisdom of Paul when we take in any source literature or media "[SUP]8 [/SUP]Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things." Phil 4:8

 

[secularhermit]

It depends on the topic you chose or the things anyone is reading, SAME WAY movies, or anything you could find at the street.

 

[secularhermit]

He! he! he! I developed a "bad" sense when hearing anything about secular-ID. He! He! Thanks!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obviously not. Throwing out what is both good and desirable from a Christian worldview perspective is undesirable. But one should also consider that God created us with the capacity to make and use good literature for our benefit and His kingdom which itself is evidence that He intends for us to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good."

And if you will be denying yourself that which is good and useful, will you be denying everyone else theirs too?

I deliberately generalized what it is I meant by secular, as I am aware there is a wide-array of secular literature. I suppose what I should have asked but didn't -- Should we disregard all secular literature, regardless of there being some good secular literature out there?

 

[Praus]

I recently submitted a short assignment that reflects my thoughts and observations regarding secular literature, and whether or not I am supportive of such literature. I will post what I wrote below:

The more you know then the more you know. A background in Greek mythology and philosophy is very helpful for contextualizing the New Testament and the rise of Christianity in the pagan world of the Roman Empire. You can see what the Apostle Paul was up against. Ephesian Artemis, for example, is drastically different than the Latinized Artemis and you'll see that clearly if you've studied Greek mythology.

Acts 19:27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship."

Some other Greek mythology references:

Acts 14:12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.

Acts 17:22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.

Acts 28:11 After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead.

Greek philosophy references, both Paul and the Hebrews author were highly educated.

Phil 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.