Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Yes, God and the Bible have been slowly excised from secular history. But even when they were there, the premise that we now presume about it was not true.
|
Secular history usually admits a broader spectrum of opinion, and data. It admits religious opinion, as one of many. So if a religious opinion says "X causes Y" (i.e. God's covenant with Israel was transposed to the North American colonies/nation and caused subsequent blessings/prosperity) then secular history should treat that hypothesis as all others.
I see two related reasons why such a religious/spiritually-oriented hypothesis of history's events is ignored(excised) by the secular writers. First, as I said, the religious opinion is now seen as but one of many. It needs to compete with other religions and other viewpoints. It is no longer monopolistic in social discourse, but is merely one idea in a welter of ideas. There is a marketplace, if you will.
Secondly, compounding this challenge, is the problem that the religious idea usually doesn't know how to compete. In social science (e.g. history) one holds forth a hypothesis (X caused Y), discusses the idea's lineage, shows how it explains observable phenomenon, shows alternatives, acknowledges flaws & weaknesses, shows where this idea could be improved upon with more study, etc. One is literally humbling oneself and acknowledging the marketplace. Religious hypotheses, from what I observe, usually denigrate everyone else or simply pretend alternatives don't exist. They usually end up in some weird place of circular reasoning, cutting off any evidence from "outside" which could restrain the madness of the prophet.
For example, "There can only be one apostle in each age" is based upon the speaking of God's oracle, who is naturally God's man of the current hour, i.e. the apostle of the age. See how easy that is? As long as you don't allow any competing voices, you can go on and on. And, as I said, you can get stranger and stranger.
"In a multitude of voices there is safety" So said the wise writer of Proberbs. He repeated this formula 3 times in that book. Instead we now see "One Publication" and "BrotherLeesaid".
Believe me, I come up with some strange (or "novel") ideas myself. Some of them I become fascinated with. They hold a marvelous explanatory power... suddenly everything becomes so clear to me! I run around, and hold forth my revelation to my friends. But my revelation is, at best, "my truth" to (quietly) live and to hold,
within what the collective church lives and holds. If I marginalize (dismiss or ignore) church teachings I will be marginalized instead. I believe that likewise religious histories have become marginalized because they don't respect the marketplace of ideas, and how it operates. If you show more respect for others' ideas you will get more traction & reception for your own.