wheat vs. chaff OR pure vs. poison?
Again, from breakfast with Bruce: at one point, he asked if Osteen was 99% pure and 1% poison. And I replied that no, Osteen's book was an example of wheat and chaff-- whatever the percentages might be for the particular person reading the book from their perspective.
But that got me thinking about the two common metaphors we use for the information we filter (and the experiences we face) every day. In my mind, most things are wheat and chaff-- and the questions are a.) whether one has sufficient wisdom to tell the difference; and b.) whether one expects there to be enough wheat to justify the time devoted to investigating the resource. (There are also occasions when one reads high-chaff content on purpose-- to understand "the other side", to help others deal with the chaff, and so on.)
That said, there are contexts in which the chaff can be poisonous: a.) if one does not have sufficient wisdom to discern; or b.) if the particular chaff is concentrated, potent or persuasive enough; or c.) if one's moral/spiritual/intellectual immune system is not strong enough to fend off the intrusion.
One other irony: how does one build up immunities to chaff, ability to discern, and accumulate wisdom and knowledge? By being well-grounded in the Truth-- and by being willing to take reasonable risks with potential chaff to gain valuable wheat. Many people are not all that well-grounded in the religious, scientific, economic and other truths they (claim to) hold dear. Others are reasonably well-grounded, but don't do much reading outside the arguments they've already accepted-- and so their faith remains untested and the knowledge/wisdom remains underdeveloped.