Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Showing posts with label Process and Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Process and Faith. Show all posts

Monday, September 18, 2023

The Agony of Moving Through Personal Deconstruction



The Agony of Moving Through
Personal Deconstruction

R.E. Slater


I have a number of articles on deconstruction on this website having once entered a spiritually dark period in my own life. It was a personal space in which I did not wish to go when called by the Spirit into an unformed space filled with personal agony and disillusionment.

When entering into this unsettling space it immediately filled up with a definitive solitude which became a seemingly endless wilderness of striking aloneness. I remember it lasted a little over eleven months and felt distinctly uninhabited by the God I knew of everywhere presence. But here, the heavens were brass and answers were not to be found. I was in an existential space of personal abandonment and aloneness. More curious was the emotional fact thst I found I had no interest in ever leaving this space.

As the days and weeks came and went I began writing of my despair and struggling with the failings of my Christian faith as I looked out across the once familiar religious landscapes now seeing the shadowed ruins lying across the empty hills where crosses once stood and lives once lived and loved with a vibrancy of faith fresh and new as the fallen rain.

Paradoxically, through these early days and weeks of darkness and despair, of abandonment and steely heavens, the Spirit came to abide without leaving to comfort by broken heart. My ruins hung in my soul like Jesus' Cross on Golgatha's hill, or like Jeremiah's famed pit of despair. Here I sat in a wilderness I did not wish to leave. And when multiple opportunities came to grant a way out, I did not leave. Nor would I leave unless my Father God came to me with the direction and answers I yearned. Otherwise, I remained in spiritual limbo quite disinterested in my ashes having none come and sit with me to disturb, disrupt, or mock. Those malicious gigures would come later. For now, I was alone seeking my God.

I had said in my heart I would only leave my disillusionment with my faith when God was done with me so that I could know from God where-and-how to proceed. Otherwise, I would stubbornly remain, praying, thinking, reading, writing.... I needed direction and needed to allow the fellowship of God's Spirit time to work in my heart a new way of faith or none at all. I refused all other misdirections. I needed clairity and discernment. What came was most curious of all... not answers but the manigold blessings of uncertainty and doubt to sit with me as my newest companions around tge ashes of my faith.

Here, with my companions I began to learn the value of asking questions I was never taught to ask of the Chtistian dogma I was taught to accept. My dialogue with my shattered faith began to resurrect. As it rose I began to see the work I was commissiined to do on behalf of those I once sheparded. Now this commissiin left the Sunday School rooms for those who came like mysrlelf broken of faith bearing spiritual grief and disillusionment.

Because my experience of solitude and brokenness was so extreme, I would never recommend this kind of deconstructive experience to anyone. It was extremely hard in every way... and spiritually dangerous because of the many misleading paths leading out of it. Paths offering forms of help and answers which I rejected. The path ahead of me didn't offer answers but required me to ask harder questions of my faith. The path I chose was uncertainty and doubt and when completed would save me from leaving my faith.

At the last, my Spirit world was re-forming and I knew exactly what I was being called to do when falling headlong into a pit of darkness. The Spirit's vision was requiring me to deconstruct my past faith and thereby reconstruct it again in a totally radical way. It took many years of breakage and rebuilding as it couldn't be done in a moment. I was to reform and remake my emergent faith into a contemporarily progressive faith. But to do this required removing its very foundations on which it stood. In those moments, my ministry turned from the caretaking of traditional Christians to the caretaking of shattered faith communities. More specifically, to the ministry of the older Nones-and-Dones and to the younger audiences under 35 years of age. My focus was to center on the Spirit of life and a renewal of faith practices in loving speech and action by creating a "Theology of Love" rather than theologies of separation and hate.

To this vision I also was guided by the Lord to build a new theological foundation built upon a better, more expansive philosophic foundation than those the church has been clinging to over tge past 2000 years. Such a foundation was forcing bad Christian theology, beliefs, rituals, practices, worship experiences, and missional policies and practices. Again, this was not a task I wanted from God, but it was God's burden which became my own. I knew it would be hard, unwanted, and rejected by my former faith. And frankly, I was too old and worn out from years of bible study and ministry, work, and family to start over again. I did not want this Spirit burden but accepted this mantle to walk the desert lands of faith composed of seared hard hearts, indifference, ignorance, mockery, rejection, and unrepentant souls.

It also would limit my activity in promoting the much-needed earth policies of green (habitat) and blue (water) organizations to political groups who were activrly ignoring these subjects of vital currency to their messages of economic reform and betterment. After earning a Master Ecologist Certification from MSU's extension program the need to address-and-instate better ecological and clean water policies (known as "green infrastructural practices") became my other unpaid, fulltime job. Thsnkfully, after retirement, the Lord gave me 15 years in participatory environmental politics and at the same time 12 years in developing a post-evangelical process theology built upon Whitehead's earlier ((Hegelian) process philosophy.

Fifteen years ago I couldn't have done this. I had no grand vision nor ability to remake a better form of Chridtisn faith. Nor any vision on which to build a vision for vibrant ecological societies and embracing communities. Yet God had other plans and directed me into a (1) post-faith resurrection of Christianity and towards a (2) reinforcing democratically balanced socio-ecological political organizations both of whom I needed to learn from. Along the way, I discovered their heart beat as my own; that we each beat together in re-visioning the presence of our future. That I was not alone but had joined communities of deconstructionists looking to rebuild betters ways of living and believing together. I also found a God I could preach again and a more proper ecological response commensurate with my new faith vision for community and world.

The Spirit had broken my heart in rejecting my older, out-of-date faith, and healed my soul out of this same spirit-darkness of personal deconstruction. Within this intense year-long arrangement between God and mysrlf I was being prepared to speak of a better God than the one my faith once believed. A God who had become an idol. An idol I was to break, like Moses did to Aaron's golden calf, and to reconstitute back to a living God for all peoples. Not just to the lost flocks of the church - but to the non-churched, religious and nonreligious, broken, dismayed, and spiritually lost. It all began with deconstructing my perceived beliefs, my arguable dogmas and fsith tenets, my misleading apologia, and my refusal to admit uncertainty and doubt as my Spirit guides.

For those interested in my ongoing ramblings and lessons learned check the topics list found on the right side of my website labeled "deconstruction". All topical discussions had once started with deconstruction as the Lord helped me to resurrect each topic towards more uplifting iterations of non-dogmatically reconstructed forms of themselves by the loving Spirit's illuminating breath forming a new, living gospel which is equally consistent in its message to the church and the world.

To this efffort I have layered each article on top of all previous articles as I build upon each thought and topic towards a fuller range of faith encompassing processually based Christian structure centered in Jesus and in love. I think of it as a theology - or compendium - of love which Christianity has lost sight of... which then broke me... and has motivated me to question all the bad, dead doctrines which have missed all the good, living doctrines formed from a loving resurrected Creator God.

R.E. Slater
August 29, 2023

*I attached the CT article below to share how those churches or church associations which have not deconstructed themselves but have placed the onus of repentance on the other rather than doing the hard work of introspection and repentance amongst themselves. The CT writer thinks of deconstruction by the unhelpfully incorrect name of "burnout" as a way of socio-religious avoidance. I would rather see his editorial efforts to the evangelical church focus on throwing off the chains of hate to follow Jesus in his atoning crucifixion and redemption to life eternal in practices of love. - re slater



* * * * * * *



The Most Dangerous Form of Deconstruction

by Russell Moore
February 9, 2022


What if some evangelicals are so burned out on church that they don’t even know it?



With all this talk of deconstruction these days, one problem is that very few people mean precisely the same thing when they use that word.

For some people, deconstructing means losing their faith altogether—becoming atheists, agnostics, or spiritual-but-not-religious nones. For others, deconstructing means still believing in Jesus but struggling with how religious institutions have failed.

And there are also many for whom deconstructing means maintaining an ongoing commitment to orthodox Christianity, as well as a robust commitment to the church—but without the cultural-political baggage associated with the label “evangelicalism.”

On one level, these divergent meanings may suggest that the term deconstruction doesn’t signify any one thing specifically—not without a great deal of qualification, that is. This is true, come to think of it, of the word evangelical these days as well.

But that doesn’t mean that deconstruction is a lesser phenomenon than we think. As a matter of fact, I think the case could be made that all of American evangelical Christianity is deconstructing—at least in some sense of the word.

It’s just that I believe there’s more than one way to deconstruct.

At one level, we can see deconstruction happening in terms of institutions. Someone asked me a few weeks ago what percentage of churches or ministries I thought were divided by the same political and cultural tumults ripping through almost every other facet of American life. I answered, “All of them. One hundred percent.”

I don’t mean that every church is in conflict; many aren’t. But even the churches and ministries that are not descending into warfare are aware of the conflict, and many are vigilant—wondering if one word said, or an event scheduled, might set it off.

Beyond that, at the level of individuals and leaders, we are perhaps not aware that the most dangerous forms of deconstruction are not the people we know who are doubting, scandalized, or traumatized by what they’ve seen in the church. There’s a different form of deconstruction that that could actually destroy us.

I always thought of “burnout” as a rather banal way of communicating exhaustion from overwork. “Make sure you take a vacation,” one might say. “You don’t want to burn out.”

In his new book, The End of Burnout, though, Jonathan Malesic argues that burnout is something else entirely. It is instead “the experience of being pulled between expectations and reality at work.” To illustrate his point, he uses the metaphor of walking on stilts.

Walking on stilts, he writes, is the experience of holding both one’s ideals and the reality of one’s job together. When the two stilts are aligned, one can keep them together and move forward. That doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it’s possible for one to walk. However, when the stilts are misaligned—that is, when the ideal and the reality are radically different—people find different ways to cope, which can lead to a kind of burnout.

 

Some, he argues, might cling to their ideals while the reality swings away from them. In his case, the metaphor has clear limits—because his point is that we place too high of expectations on our work and careers, expecting them to give us meaning and purpose in life, which they cannot deliver.

In the case of the church, however, we have not expected too much, but too little. The church is meant to shape our character, and if not to grant meaning to our life, then to at least to point us toward the meaning—through worship, mission, and teaching.

Yet some have seen behind the veil to a kind of Christianity that does not even aspire to holiness, love, gentleness, Christlikeness, renewal of mind, bearing of burdens—the kind of church found in the New Testament. These people are often led to the point of exhaustion at the incongruity of it all, perhaps questioning if they were lied to all along.

For some, Malesic contends, the stilt walking falters when they ignore the reality and hold on to their ideals anyway. This is the sort of coping mechanism we see in those who wave away the current crisis in the church by saying, “Well, think of all the good things happening” or “Most people aren’t like that” or “The church was never meant to be made up of perfect people.”

Those things are easy to believe, because there’s a sense in which they are all true. But often, in times like these, what they really mean is “Don’t talk about these matters in public; we can handle them on our own in private, but we don’t want to give Jesus a bad reputation.” The problem is, Jesus never asked his church to protect his reputation, especially by covering up when something wrong or dangerous is done in his name.

But what’s more is that, as Malesic points out in the workplace, the “If we don’t talk about it, it will go away” mentality cannot hold. If our moral ideals are strong but we reassure ourselves with a false version of reality, we will end up seeing through our own delusions—and others certainly will.

And when that happens, it results in a different kind of burnout—frustration. That is, we begin to despair that anything ever can or will eventually be done to fix things.

The most dangerous form of deconstruction, however, is what we see happening in the lives of people who would never see themselves deconstructing. Many of them seem to believe what they’ve always believed, and they still belong to or lead the same institutions they always have.

In fact, they are often the ones heatedly denouncing those who are deconstructing—or the ones still left wondering how and why so much awful fruit could emerge from systems and institutions they presumed to be godly, trusted, and “confessional.”

For some of these people, there’s an entirely different kind of deconstruction or type of burnout.

Malesic argues that this form of burnout happens when their ideals and reality are so divergent that—having to choose one of the stilts on which to cling—they abandon the ideals to settle for the reality as it is.

At first, they can find all sorts of reasons why their former ideals are too unrealistic, even if these reasons are completely incongruent with what they once stood for. People who expect the church to live up to what Jesus demanded of it are said to be “currying favor with elites” or “not realistic about how the world works” or “not seeing what’s at stake if we don’t circle the wagons around ‘the base.’”

In following this strategy, people begin to depersonalize those around them. This leads to cynicism. Once the institution is all that’s left—or “the movement” or “the cause” or the “theology” or, even worse, their own position and platform—they have ultimately torn down their individual character, which is needed to protect and build those institutions.

Even worse, they have deadened the personal conscience needed to hear the call to repent. One can be a hack easily enough in the marketplace or in the political arena. But playing to whatever “the base” wants or expects from the church of Jesus Christ year after year does something far worse—and not just to the institution or the lives of those harmed, but to the very souls of those who play the game.

Once they have whittled down their moral principles to only those that are useful in maintaining their own place of belonging—they have essentially deconstructed themselves.

As we watch evangelicalism in the United States deconstructing in various ways, I wonder if what we should do is not avoid burnout but rather seek the right kind. After all, God’s most miraculous work seems to come at the point of our greatest frustration, helplessness, and even despair.

The prophet Elijah was not crazy to believe that he had encountered a hopeless situation. In his time, the people of God were captive to idols, and to vicious, predatory, narcissistic leadership. But Elijah had to get to the point where he could hear God saying to him, What are you doing here, Elijah?

John the Baptist was not being unreasonable when he sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Luke 7:20) And when the disciples on the road to Emmaus said to their traveling companion, the recently crucified Jesus, “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (24:21)—Jesus revealed to them that their hopes has been met in ways they couldn’t have imagined until that very moment.

The question is not whether we will deconstruct, but what we will deconstruct.

Will it be the wood, hay, and stubble that is destined to burn up and burn out? Or will it be our own souls? Sometimes the people we think are “deconstructing” are just grieving and asking God where he is at a moment like this. That has happened before.

By contrast, sometimes the people who appear most confident and certain—who are scanning the boundaries for heretics—are those who have given up belief in the new birth, in the renewal of the mind, and in the judgment seat of Christ. For them, all that’s left is an orthodoxy grounded not in a living Christ, but in a curated brand.

And that may be the saddest deconstruction of all.


*Russell Moore leads the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today.
This piece was adapted from Russell Moore’s newsletter.
Subscribe here.

Sunday, September 17, 2023

R.E. Slater Shorts - The Evolution of You vs the Pseudo-Science of YEC





The complex evolution of homo sapiens
1,000,000 to 30,000 years ago
September 17, 2021

Thanks to boneclones for the brilliant skulls! Use discount code 'stefan' for $20 off your order. https://bit.ly/3BPfmh3.
And a huge thanks as always to my patrons! https://www.patreon.com/stefanmilo
Artwork by Ettore Mazza: https://www.instagram.com/ettore.mazza/
Music by Tom Fox: www.tfbeats.com
Voiceover by Alexander Doddy: https://www.alexanderdoddy.com/
Sources: Anyone can view, not just patrons:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/56261951
Disclaimer: Use my videos as a rough guide to a topic. I am not an expert, I may get things wrong. This is why I always post my sources so you can critique my work and verify things for yourselves. Of course I aim to be as accurate as possible which is why you will only find reputable sources in my videos. Secondly, information is always subject to changes as new information is uncovered by archaeologists. www.stefanmilo.com

---



The Evolution of You vs the Pseudo-Science of YEC

by R.E. Slater

Dedicated to my FB friend, Grant Alford


The NOVA vid I recently watched by Dr. Steve Austin denies the science of evolution and promotes the pseudo-science of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) based upon "Flood Mythology" by extending the Story of Noah in the book of Genesis found in the bible.

Firstly, as a former evangelical YEC'er my first book I read on this subject was "The Genesis Flood" by Henry M. Morris which "presents a thorough system unifying and correlating scientific data in the earth’s early history. Morris, and co-author John C. Whitcomb, propose a biblically based system of creationism and catastrophism. A modern classic, this title has become required reading for creationists. Here's are several "reviews" by creationists authors and preachers:
Editorial Reviews
Review
“The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb is one of the most important books of the past century. Prior to its publication in 1961, evangelicals were for the most part unprepared to answer evolutionists’ and modern geologists’ claims about the antiquity of the earth. Many blithely assumed that the days of creation in Genesis 1 represented long ages; others held to the 'gap theory'―the idea that vast eons elapsed between the initial creation of the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1) and the formation of life as we know it (starting in Genesis 1:2). The Genesis Flood showed why such theories don’t do justice to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The book revived evangelicals’ interest in flood geology, demonstrating that most of the geological phenomena usually cited as 'proof' of the earth’s antiquity are better explained as evidence of a catastrophic universal flood, as described in Genesis 6–8. In recent years young-earth creationism has come under heavy attack in evangelical circles again, and The Genesis Flood is as timely, thought-provoking, and helpful as ever. . . . A tour de force and a must-read resource for pastors, teachers, scientists, and anyone who is troubled by the conflict between the biblical account of creation and the ever-changing claims of modern evolutionary theory.” -- John MacArthur, President, The Master’s University and Seminary
"When The Genesis Flood was published it was the combined voice of two courageous men crying, as it were, in the wilderness. They dared to take a stand against the pervading compromise on the issue of creation and the flood by robustly tackling head-on the uniformitarian geological assumptions that underpin the secular worldview on origins that had mesmerized so many Christians into compromising the opening chapters of God’s Word. Single-handedly these men with this book kindled a fire that today is still raging. Little did they know the global impact this book would have. Like so many others I know, I read this book as a young Christian in my teenage years when I was already a budding geologist, and it totally resolved my ongoing struggle to reconcile the geology I was learning in the secular textbooks with the true account of earth’s history in God’s Word. Not only did this book convince me that God’s Word provides the only reliable basis for understanding geology, but it was foundational in igniting my passion for and calling into full-time creation ministry to uphold the truth of God’s Word and defend it from compromise, beginning at the very first verse. This book remains a classic work that is a must-read for those who would be informed and equip themselves both to stand on the authority of God’s Word in every area of life and knowledge and to defend their Christian faith." -- Andrew Snelling, BSc (Applied Geology) PhD (Geochemical Geology)
"I have been privileged to have witnessed the rising biblical creation movement for the past forty years and have seen it used mightily by God to blossom into a major international force. The movement not only has shaken the evolutionary, “millions of years” establishment, but more importantly has equipped the church to share our Christian faith with renewed boldness. The publishing of The Genesis Flood fifty years ago is the recognized birthdate of a movement blessed by God, and this classic work is also now recognized as a monumental milestone in the fight against compromise in the church and for biblical inerrancy in general during our skeptical modern era. Finding a copy of The Genesis Flood in an Australian bookstore and devouring its contents was a key event that led me to join the modern biblical creation movement in the 1970s. Drs. Whitcomb and Morris became real ‘heroes of the faith’ for me. I saw them as giants in Christian apologetics." -- Ken Ham, BSc (Environmental Biology), President, Answers in Genesis and The Creation Museum
About the Author
John C. Whitcomb studied at Princeton University and has a Ph.D. from Grace Theological Seminary. Henry M. Morris was president of the Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California. He studied at Rice University, obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, and served on the faculties of several major universities.

After watching about 30 minutes of the YEC-based Christian film spouting a lot of global flood jargon and nonsense I turned it off and wrote out a few comments about this quasi-science.

First, it isn't science but is using science to tell a different story than science would tell.

Next, I find it disingenuous and misleading to the naive and uninitiated. I've had grown adults laugh at the audacity of evolution well believing that the earth cannot be any older than 6000 - 10,000 years ago (respectively, Bishop Ussher and a later subjectional correction to Ussher's date developed in the 1600's).

Third, learn to think of evolution as a process initiated by God. It's process is not immediately and utilizes what is available in the Earth to continually form and reform living organisms. It isn't an immediate process and isn't a perfect process. It is simply a divine process lumping along experimenting and trying out new biological derivatives. Sometimes successfully. Sometimes not.

Fourthly, I now think of the bible as no more inspired than we are today. The Spirit of God is continually filling all our present moments with God's soul even as the earth was filled by God's soul in ancient superstitious cultures. We just need to listen and discern what that is or isn't.

Which is why I say all the time that God is not hard to understand. We love because God loves. Whereas the bible narratives of 750 -350 BC (2800-2400 years ago) were being collected by people trying to figure out who or what God was. Thus we get mythologies of a violent God according to some beliefs; a penitent God; a God of wrath and judgment; an avenging God; a jealous God; a shepherding God; a kind and compassionate; a forgiving God; a world-ending God; etc. The bible is no less nor no more inspired than a well written book today, or a well constructed (progressive) theology, or an insightful sermon by a loving, passionate individual.

To be therefore comparing ancient flood lore as global news events is misleading. Those who wrote of the Noahic Flood did not know anything about the continents or seas or of glaciation events. Meaning, we need to use the bible as we would any other ancient narrative... as a way to judge where people were in their cultural understanding of history, religion, and themselves.

This is not unlike the theological teachings which Christian churches, fellowships, seminaries, and ministries are presently extending today when asking, "Who is God and what is God doing?" Some are conservatively traditional and others are progressively scientific. The divide shouldn't be science but our own outlooks, prejudices, and beliefs about God. It would seem obvious that the bible's collection of cultural beliefs should be examined and judged by what we know today rather than to be taken ipso facto as a stubborn persistency of closed belief.

Fifthly, we can say that the bibliolatry surrounding the bible, or the many magical-thinking ideologies about the bible, are quite unhelpful. The best we can say about the bible's inspiration back then is that God is as fully, thoroughly loving as God was, and is, today. This is supportable by God's incarnation as Jesus and the atoning Messiah/Christ spoken of in the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Ultimately, God's Soul is as redemptively motivated as God is loving. I, myself, am consequently forming a "Theology of Love" rather than a "Theology of Wrath and Judgment".

As an aside, it is my judgment that the people and cultural narratives of the bible were struggling with whom God is and misread their circumstances through their own religious fears and errant beliefs. I find a parallel in the recent Covid pandemic a few years ago wherein churches preached their beliefs of a judgmental God visiting humanity with wrath and vengeance for our sin. This would be an incorrect application of theodicy (the theology of sin and evil).

Moreover, from the bible we read of Jesus atoning for our sins and being raised from the dead. Consequently we learn that redemption is all around us bc God is always redeeming earth and man moment-by-moment. That much is helpful from the bible. It gives us a way to think about God without becoming loonies about the kinds of gods the bible depicts through it's pages

The violence in the OT or the presumed violence by God in the future from the NT book of Revelation is not the real God of love. When looking at the violence and sin around us we would be in error in thinking that these are judgments and acts of God upon us. Violence and sin comes from us and not from the God of love. Thus so with the bible naratives attributing God with violence. Ppl were wrong then about God even as they are wrong now in their attributions and presumptions about God.

Which is yet another reason I cannot support deterministic Calvinism in an open future even as freewill Arminianism also needs to be uplifted so that we learn to write from both perspectives a theology of love and no longer of wrath, hell, and judgment. These latter come from us, not from God. And by the way, for any contemporary progressive theology to work it needs to be based upon an open and relational process theology.

Bottom line, we don't need quasi-Ph.D's making up Christianized pseudo-evolutionary events to prove bible things. The bible is not a science book. It is a book about God's love and redemption. Abandon yesteryear's well intentioned but misleading beliefs and dogmas. It's time "to eat meat and grow up," said Paul.

R.E. Slater
September 11, 2023
Published Sep 17, 2023

Sources - Is Genesis History (YEC theories)
Disclaimer: I do not endorse, support, nor encourage Young Earth Creationism (YEC)
- R.E. Slater

---



For over four decades, we have worked to ensure that what is taught in science classrooms and beyond is accurate and consistent with the best current understanding of the scientific community.

Here is one source of many which seeks to correctly teach contemporary science

January 22, 2016
Young Earth Creationism

When most people hear the word "creationism," they probably think of the variety called Young Earth Creationism (YEC). Young Earth Creationists adopt a method of Biblical interpretation which requires that the earth be no more than 10,000 years old, and that the six days of creation described in Genesis each lasted for 24 hours. Young Earth Creationists believe that the origin of the earth, the universe, and various forms of life, etc., are all instances of special creation. The doctrine of special creation involves direct divine intervention, suspending the laws of nature to achieve a given result. This doctrine contrasts with a view common among theistic evolutionists that God can work through natural laws.

Young Earth Creationists are among the more organized creationist movements. Two of the largest groups, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research produce magazines, websites, books, and videos for general audiences as well as publish journals which report on so-called "creation science". In May of 2007, Answers in Genesis opened a multi-million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky, aimed at attracting a wide public audience. The Institute for Creation Research, was founded by Henry Morris in 1970, and operates the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, California.

YEC writings tend to focus on attempting to explain why much of modern science cannot be correct. For example, Young Earth Creationists spend considerable effort trying to explain why the earth cannot be 4.5 billion years old. They also make arguments for the feasibility of Noah's ark and for the occurrence of a single worldwide flood within the last 5,000 years. A major YEC endeavor is to explain how the 15 million or more species alive today could have evolved from a much smaller number of "kinds" which they believe were created in Genesis. This project is sometimes referred to as baraminology, named after the Hebrew word min, which is traditionally translated as "after its kind," in passages like "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind." A central tenet of Young Earth Creationism is that evolution is possible only within these created kinds, a form of evolution they call microevolution, while it is not possible between kinds, which they distinguish as macroevolution. This is not the way those terms are used by the scientific community.

Attempts to force YEC teachings into public schools were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1968's Epperson v. Arkansas decision, and again in 1987's Edwards v. Aguillard.

---



How to hold true to your faith and embrace modern science
Ever since the Scopes Monkey Trial in the early twentieth century, American evangelicals have considered scientists public enemy #1. But this antipathy to modern science turned deadly during the COVID-19 crisis, when white evangelicals snubbed precautions and vaccines. Herself an evangelical Christian and a science educator, Janet Kellogg Ray explains how we got here and how to fix it.
As the follow-up to Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark?, this lively volume covers evolution as well as the coronavirus pandemic, vaccines, climate change, and the frontiers of genetic research. Ray explains the facts accessibly and with verve. Along the way, she vividly narrates the scientific achievements—and political and religious drama—that got us to where we are today.
Ultimately, Ray calls for evangelicals to speak to science, rather than deny it. We need Christian ethics now more than ever to determine how best to act in light of current scientific data and for love of neighbor. If you’re afraid of science hurting your faith, this book will show you how to be true to both

---


A scientific look at creationism from a former creationist
A significant number of Americans, especially evangelical Christians, believe Earth and humankind were created in their present form sometime in the last 10,000 years or so—the rationale being that this is (presumably) the story told in the book of Genesis. Within that group, any threatening scientific evidence that suggests otherwise is rejected or, when possible, retrofitted into a creationist worldview.
But can this uncomfortable blend of biblical literalism and pseudoscience hold up under scrutiny? Is it tenable to believe that the Grand Canyon was formed not millions of years ago by gradual erosion but merely thousands of years ago by the Great Flood? Were there really baby dinosaurs with Noah on his ark?
Janet Kellogg Ray, a science educator who grew up a creationist, doesn’t want other Christians to have to do the exhausting mental gymnastics she did earlier in her life. Working through the findings of a range of fields including geology, paleontology, and biology, she shows how a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis simply doesn’t mesh with what we know to be reality. But as someone who remains a committed Christian, Ray also shows how an acceptance of the theory of evolution is not necessarily an acceptance of atheism, and how God can still be responsible for having created the world, even if it wasn’t in a single, momentary, miraculous event


---


Seven Million Years of Human Evolution
November 3, 2018

Scientists use fossils to reconstruct the evolutionary history of hominins—the group that includes modern humans, our immediate ancestors, and other extinct relatives. Today, our closest living relatives are chimpanzees, but extinct hominins are even closer. Where and when did they live? What can we learn about their lives? Why did they go extinct? Scientists look to fossils for clues.
0:00 - Introduction
1:04 - First known hominin
1:29 - Bipedalism
2:32 - In-line toes, Australopithecus
3:27 - Tool use
4:06 - Migration out of Africa
4:44 - Cooking and fire
5:07 - Homo sapiens
5:38 - Family tree of human ancestors

---


Speaking of Monkey's and Evolution perhaps this is why we like to
"Swing" dance and do group things together. PS - I think the guy
in the second row in the middle looks a lot like the actor Andy Garcia.
His name is Stephen and can be found in the 2019=2020 vids. I'll
provide a "shortie" below. Enjoy and have fun!


RTSF 2019 – Killer Boogie
March 4, 2019


Rock That Swing Festival 2019:
Killer Boogie at Deutsches Theater (2 March 2019).




Thursday, September 14, 2023

R.E. Slater Shorts - What is the Opposite of Creatio Ex Nihilo?




What is the Opposite of
Creatio Ex Nihilio?

by R.E. Slater

Reddit Question

What is the opposite of "From Nothing"? There was some phrase like Creatio Ex Deo which I think is creation from God, not sure. But I'm wondering if there are variations?

I bring this up because I'm writing a story where a person is using a pseudonym that is a reversal of Ex Nihilio and I'm wondering if there's a cool way to say something cryptic as a name. Ex Deo or something else?

- Anon

My Comment as reslater2

I usually use creatio continua at my process theology site. It refers to the continuing creative acts of God throughout every moment and eon of the universe or multiverses. In effect, you may think of God's creational activity as never ending and which adapts to the conditions and environments of the present tense universe.


Others have used the following:


creatio ex sustaina - similar to "continua" but focused on the necessity of God's sustaining of creation thus leaning into the immanence of God without denying transcendence of God. That is, God cannot abandon or be separate from creation lest it become "unsustained". The Christian gospel gains more energy from the knowledge that a loving God ever loves and never abandons creation (contra conservative traditional doctrine which places "holiness" as a more important condition of God's character than what process theology states that God's Love dictates the kind of holiness God is.

creatio ex materia - creation out of material which exists. This is a bit more specific than creatio continua and they each can be used together. Here, we may use the example of a tiny acorn giving birth to a colony of trees, so the biblical "void" which in this sense I fill with a timeless 1 dimensional space of hot plasmic gas without any disruptions, making it homogenous, and void-like (think of a Black Hole which doesn't emit light NOR radiate any energy from its vortices).

creatio ex creation a natura amoris - creating from creation birthed by love. Meaning that God's eternal nature of Love supersedes all other divine attributes. God's love is what gives to God his/her divine holiness. Traditional Christianity says that God's apartness from sin gives to God his/her quality of holiness. Process theology says "No." God's Love is what gives to God his/her divine holiness... not God's quality of apartness from God's creation. Again, leaning into the immanence of God without denying God's "Otherness" (sic, transcedence, per se). Hence, creatio ex creation a natura amoris is more adequate for Christians speaking to God's eternal nature includes love for creatures. Love for creation is God’s motive and motion when creating. And God has always been creating in love.

creatio ex nihilo nihil fit - out of nothing, nothing comes. This reinforces the early definitions of creatio continua et al.

creatio ex deo - creation out of God. But this is inspecific and leans towards creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo)

creatio ex nihilo - God creates out of nothing. Which is impossible. There must be a something there to create from. Hence, supposing a primal plasmic 1D space (no time) that God comes to, "stirs" or reorganizes, and releases to become all that it may become (perhaps a Marine combat soldier! haha).

The possibilities are limitless. It only required a primal source or initial relational contact with God as the Primary Process whom/which (sic, "context") to initial all resulting processes organic, inorganic, and psychic.

The Imago Dei has thus embedded itself into creation that it more fully in relationship to itself, experiencing those relationships as they come into contact with one another, and has embued or taken in those relationships to evolve or "become" in some new sense when filled with "relational feeling" within itself (this is the panpsychic, sentient, consciousness, spirituality part).

In process theology, all creation began with these potential attributes and were enhanced by the God of process to become more than its own static being. So one might say God comes upon all that is and enriches it, regerates it, causes it to thrive, and become more than it was. It's basically how God's Love works. It gives without taking. Blesses all it touches. Is the Causation above all other causes without removing creation agency/freewill.

I hope this helps,

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/


R.E. Slater
September 14, 2023





level 1
vita pessima

Creatio ex nihilio basically means that God didn't use any resource to create everything (in contrast to us humans, we need resources).

Ex Deo means that God himself was the resource, so he transformed some part of himself to create the world. So the opposite, as it looks to me, it to make something using a resource. Aedificātiō/Fōrmātiō Ex Rē? Because in Genesis, when God creates something out of nothing the word creare is used, but when God made the man out of earth, the word formare is used. And when the woman was made out of a body part, aedificare is used. So the author saw a difference between creatio and the other words. Edit: Not sure about the ex re (it is supposed to mean out of something).

level 2

I'm glad you bring that up, I was kinda going for the bible reference because it tends to be a recurring theme in stories.

The character name I wanted is supposed to be a direct counter of another opposing character that represents a machine. One is a computer program, the other is a man.

So one idea is that computers can be just as human as us, if not more so. The other is that humans are capable of much deeper, richer lives that have compassion and understanding.

So the program is called ex nihilo, and the other something else. Maybe I could use a Formatio Ex Re, perhaps.

level 1
SAIYAN48·5 yr. agodiscipulus

Ex omnibus? Or maybe In omnibus?

level 1

"ex materiā" is usually the opposite of "ex nihilo" used in theology. Creation is done out of preexisting material as opposed to out of nothing.

level 1

"Deus ex machina" maybe?