ChatGPT and I Discuss "The Evolution of God & Religion" (in 5 Parts)

article link

ChatGPT and I Discuss

"The Evolution of God & Religion"

Over the last several months or more I've been in a quandary as to how to approach the subject matter of the Evolution of God and Religion. I have tried several times to start this discussion after completing several long series:


I

Evolution of Man and Religion: In The Days Before Genesis

Science - Processual Evolution

Science and Human Origins

Science and Evolution - General Topics

II

Evolution of the Christian Faith

Radical Christian Process Theology

The Christian Faith Transforming &Transitioning
from Modernal to Postmodernal to Metamodernism

What Is Process Christianity?

American Dissenters in the American Church

III

My most current series -

Evolution of God and Religion

Today, I would like to set the parameters to Part III's study (above) for future studies I'll write up over the next year. The approach will require a variety of emphases, to wit, I enlisted ChatGPT into our discussion to help me sort it all out. Below is what we came up with last night...

And as you will discover, there is a lot to consider... which is why I finally decided I needed a bit of help in sorting out my own thoughts.

Most likely, the next several articles on the evolution of God and religion will be related to the links below. So be patient as I try to re-digest each part below one by one while adding a few videos to help us to think not only philosophically and theologically but anthropologically as well.

Enjoy,

R.E. Slater

September 21, 2023

* * * * * *

PART 1 -

Kinds of Processual Evolution

RS (me)

Hi. It’s been a while. Please reference our discussions from my account.

ChatGPT (3.5)

I'm here to help, but I don't have access to past conversations or user account information. Each session with me is stateless and doesn't retain any previous discussion history for privacy and security reasons. How can I assist you today?

RS

Ok. My interest is in AN Whitehead's process philosophy and John Cobb's process theology. I have been applying it to all subjects and disciplines over the last several years.

ChatGPT

That's fascinating! Whitehead's process philosophy and John Cobb's process theology are intricate philosophical frameworks that can be applied to various subjects and disciplines. If you have specific questions or if there's a particular aspect of these philosophies you'd like to discuss or explore, please feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you.

RS

Yes, I do. I wish to apply these concepts into the general subject area of the evolution of God and religion beginning with the earliest histories of hominin of 2.5 million years ago to around 350,000 years ago before the evolution of modern man (homo sapiens).

ChatGPT

Exploring the evolution of God and religion from the perspective of process philosophy and process theology is a thought-provoking endeavor. Here are some key points and considerations when applying these frameworks to this subject:

Cosmic Evolution: Process philosophy views the universe as in a state of continuous evolution. You can apply this to the idea that religious and spiritual concepts have also evolved over time in response to changing human experiences and environments.

Theistic Evolution: Process theology often incorporates the idea of a God who evolves along with the universe. You could examine how early religious beliefs among hominins might have mirrored their understanding of their environment and the forces they encountered.

Religious Practices: Analyze how religious rituals and practices evolved from simple, animistic beliefs to more complex organized religions. Process thought can help you understand how these practices adapt and evolve over time.

Morality and Ethics: Consider how moral and ethical systems within various religious traditions have developed in response to changing societal needs and contexts.

Interconnectedness: Process thought emphasizes interconnectedness. You might explore how early religious beliefs reflected a sense of connectedness with nature and the cosmos.

Theological Implications: Discuss how process theology's view of God as evolving might relate to the development of monotheistic religions and the idea of an ever-changing, dynamic deity.

Archaeological and Anthropological Evidence: Incorporate findings from archaeological and anthropological research to trace the development of religious practices and beliefs among early hominins.

Remember that applying these frameworks to the evolution of God and religion is a complex endeavor, and it's essential to take into account both historical and cultural contexts. It can be a fascinating journey into the intersection of philosophy, theology, and anthropology. If you have specific questions or need more information on any of these points, please feel free to ask!

* * * * * *

A FEW CONTEXTUAL CHARTS BEFORE CONTINUING...

CONTINUING...

TERMS 

Hominin -  A primate of a taxonomic tribe ( say, Hominini ), which comprises those species regarded as human, directly ancestral to humans, or very closely related to humans.

Hominid - an older term for hominin

Hominini - any member of the zoological “tribe” Hominini (family Hominidae, order Primates), of which only one species exists today — Homo sapiens, or [modern] human beings. The term is used most often to refer to extinct members of the human lineage, some of which are now quite well known from fossil remains.

Hominim - Not a definition nor a word.

Simarily, Hominim - Often mixed up with "ad hominem" which is used as an argument attacking a person's character or their motivations rather than their position or argument. It may also appeal to the emotions of the argument rather than to the logic or reasoning behind it.

* * * * * *

PART 2 -

The Evolution of God

RS

What might be said of the evolution of God qua early hominins before the neolithic age? (This will necessarily include homo sapiens as the only surviving homo soevies at this time.)

ChatGPT

The evolution of the concept of God among early hominins before the Neolithic age is a subject that combines anthropology, theology, and philosophy. When examining this, you can consider several key points:

Animism and Nature Worship: Early hominins likely had animistic beliefs, perceiving spiritual forces or consciousness in natural elements like animals, plants, and natural phenomena. These animistic beliefs can be seen as a precursor to more complex concepts of God.

Polytheism: As human societies became more complex, they often developed polytheistic belief systems with multiple gods, each associated with various aspects of life. These gods could represent natural forces, ancestors, or other beings. This can be seen as an intermediate stage in the evolution of the concept of God.

Anthropomorphism: Over time, gods began to take on more anthropomorphic qualities, resembling humans in form and having distinct personalities and roles. This shift can be seen as a step toward monotheism.

Monotheistic Tendencies: Some early civilizations, such as ancient Egypt and the Akkadian Empire, displayed tendencies toward a single, supreme deity above others. This hints at the emergence of monotheistic concepts of God.

Philosophical Reflection: In ancient Greece and other cultures, philosophers like the Pre-Socratics began to contemplate abstract and metaphysical concepts of a single, unified principle or deity. This philosophical reflection contributed to the [continuing] evolution of monotheistic ideas.

Social and Cultural Factors: Consider how changes in social structures, cultural interactions, and technological advancements influenced the development of religious beliefs among early hominins.

Evidence from Artifacts: Analyze archaeological artifacts, cave paintings, and early religious symbols to understand how early hominins expressed their spiritual beliefs and the evolution of religious symbolism.

It's important to note that this evolution was gradual and varied across different [geographical] regions and cultures. The transition from animistic beliefs to polytheism, and eventually to monotheism, was a complex and multifaceted process. The study of this evolution can provide valuable insights into the cognitive development and cultural evolution of early human societies.

* * * * * *

PART 3 -

The Evolution of Religion

RS

Similarly, what might be said of the evolution of religion before the neolithic age?

ChatGPT

The evolution of religion before the Neolithic Age is a complex and multifaceted topic, and it's essential to consider various aspects of early human societies and their beliefs. Here are some key points to consider when discussing the evolution of religion during this period:

Animism and Spirituality: Early hominins likely practiced animism, where they attributed spiritual significance to natural elements, such as animals, plants, and natural phenomena. This can be considered the foundation of religious thought.

Shamanism: Shamanistic practices, involving individuals (shamans) who communicate with the spiritual world, may have been prevalent. Shamans played a crucial role in early religious and healing practices.

Rituals and Burial Practices: Examine the archaeological evidence for early rituals and burial practices. The treatment of the dead often reflects religious or spiritual beliefs about the afterlife and the role of ancestors.

Cosmology and Mythology: Investigate the creation myths and cosmological beliefs of early societies. These stories often provided a framework for understanding the world and humanity's place in it.

Cave Art and Symbols: Study prehistoric cave art and symbolic representations. These artworks may provide insights into the spiritual and religious symbolism of early cultures.

Social and Economic Factors: Consider how religious beliefs and practices were influenced by the social and economic conditions of early hunter-gatherer societies. Religion may have served as a way to explain natural events and promote social cohesion.

Cultural Variation: Recognize that religious beliefs and practices varied significantly across different [localized] regions and cultures. The evolution of religion was not a linear process but rather a complex interplay of local traditions and influences.

Transition to Agriculture: The Neolithic Revolution marked a significant shift as humans transitioned from hunting and gathering to agriculture. This transition likely influenced religious beliefs, with the [more recent] emergence of agricultural deities and fertility rituals.

Technological Advancements: Advances in tools and technologies may have influenced religious practices and beliefs, as humans gained greater control over their environment.

Cognitive Development: Consider how the [biological] cognitive development of early humans played a role in shaping religious beliefs, including their capacity for abstract thought and symbolic thinking.

Studying the evolution of religion before the Neolithic Age provides valuable insights into the development of human culture, cognition, and spirituality. It's a rich area of research that combines archaeology, anthropology, and the history of human thought.

* * * * * *

PART 4 -

The Evolution of Religion

RS

When speaking of God or of religion can one present a list of similarities and differences between the two subject categories in a non-institutional form of speculation?

ChatGPT

Certainly, you can explore the similarities and differences between the concepts of God and religion in a non-institutional form of speculation. Here's a simplified breakdown of some key points:

SIMILARITIES

Subjective Experience: Both God and religion often involve deeply personal and subjective experiences. Individuals may have profound encounters with God or find personal meaning and purpose through religious practices.

Human Constructs: Both God and religion are human constructs. God represents the divine or transcendent, while religion encompasses the organized systems of beliefs, rituals, and [polity] practices created by humans to understand and relate to the divine.

Interconnectedness: Both concepts often emphasize interconnectedness. Religion can highlight the interconnectedness of individuals within a community, while God is often seen as the source of all creation and the ultimate interconnected reality.

DIFFERENCES:

Nature and Existence: God typically refers to a divine, supernatural being or force believed to exist independently of human perception and experience. Religion, on the other hand, refers to the organized systems of beliefs, practices, and institutions that humans create to relate to God or address spiritual questions.

Multiplicity: While various religions exist, each with its own concept of God or gods, the concept of religion itself can encompass a wide range of beliefs and practices. This means that religion can be pluralistic, while God is often considered singular or monistic within a particular religious tradition.

Purpose: God is often seen as the ultimate source of meaning, purpose, and transcendence. Religion serves as a means for individuals and communities to access or connect with this transcendent reality and to find guidance in matters of ethics, morality, and spirituality.

Institutional vs. Personal: Religion often has institutional aspects, such as churches, temples, or religious organizations. God, on the other hand, is a more abstract and personal concept that can be experienced and interpreted differently by individuals, whether within or outside [corporate] institutional settings.

Evolution and Adaptation: Religions can evolve and adapt over time in response to cultural, social, and historical changes. The concept of God may remain relatively stable within a religious tradition but can also evolve as theological perspectives shift.

Remember that these are simplified generalizations, and the nuances and interpretations of God and religion can vary significantly among different cultures, philosophies, and individuals. Non-institutional speculation can delve deeper into these complexities and explore a wide range of perspectives and interpretations.

* * * * * *

Source link

PART 5 -

The Processual Evolution of Belief

RS

How would you recast these thoughts in a processual manner?

ChatGPT

Certainly, let's recast these thoughts in a processual manner, aligning with the principles of process philosophy and theology:

PROCESSUAL SIMILARITIES

Dynamic Subjective Experiences: Both God and religion can be seen as dynamic, evolving subjective experiences [where] individuals [and institutions] engage in ongoing processes of religious exploration and spiritual growth, which evolve over time.

Emergent Constructs: God and religion [processually] emerge through human experiences and interactions. They are not static entities but continuously evolve in response to the changing circumstances, needs, and insights of individuals and communities.

Interconnected Becoming: The concepts of God and religion are interconnected in a processual manner. Religion emerges as a response to human experiences of the divine, and the concept of God evolves within the context of various religious traditions and practices.

PROCESSUAL DIFFERENCES

Creative Evolution of God: In a processual perspective, God can be viewed as a [primal] creative, evolving [pancessual] force or principle that is immanent within the universe's ongoing [processual] becoming. Different religions and individuals may perceive God's creative process in diverse ways, leading to a multiplicity of theological interpretations.

Religion as Transformative Process: Religion, as a process, involves [processual] transformative experiences and growth. It is not a fixed institution but a dynamic journey of spiritual development, where individuals and communities adapt their religious beliefs and practices over time.

Purposeful Evolution: The purpose of religion may be understood as an ongoing quest to explore and deepen one's connection with the divine, whatever form that may take. In contrast, God's purpose, as conceived within religious traditions, is often seen as guiding and sustaining the universe's evolutionary processes.

Institutional Adaptation: Religious institutions, in a processual sense, adapt and change to meet the evolving needs of their adherents and society. This adaptation is a response to the ongoing process of cultural and societal transformation.

Co-Creative Relationship: The relationship between God and religion is co-creative and interactive. God is not a distant, static deity but [One who] actively participates in the ongoing process of human spiritual exploration and religious expression [to one another and creation itself].

 

By approaching the concepts of God and religion in a processual manner, we emphasize their dynamic, evolving nature and the interconnectedness of the human experience with the divine. This perspective invites ongoing exploration and adaptation, reflecting the principles of process philosophy and theology.

RS

Awesome. Thank you.

ChatGPT

You're very welcome! If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with in the future, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!

Personal Update: A Life Reconstructed, Part II

May-August 2023

Personal Update:

A Life Reconstructed

Part II

I'm back on heavy drugs again to clean out my body from the infection(s) I've borne over the past eight year since January 2016. Hence, my limited articles through this year.

Because I am conscientious about my conversations and commentary I do not wish to "dream walk" through my material as I present them. Especially as it tends to be "cutting edge" across a variety of topics. It takes a clear mind to imagine what can be in a world which fights for the old ways of disunity, isolation, and suspicion.

And with my present drug sedation I find keeping my focus can be a problem. The other difficulty is the lack of energy and exhaustion I bear through the day because of the infection-fighting drugs.

However, I hope to do what I can even as I have since the first of May 2023 of this year. All the while I am praying my health journey will find successful completion sometime in the first quarter of 2024 after several more foot-and-ankle surgeries as I have shown below.

As always, thank you for your support and prayers. Please take what has been offered here at Relevancy22 since 2011 to extend and expand process philosophy, theology, science, and ecology across all areas of endeavor.

We are in need of a world united by difference and love. As Friedrich Schleiermacher had well said, "There are miracles all around us." We just need to lift up our eyes and look around.

However, for those bearing personal cruelty, abuse, suffering, and oppression, let us alter Schleiermacher's statement just a bit and make as our own motto: "Be the miracle to those needing miracles." In this way we may rightfully say there are miracles all around us.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

September 19, 2023

Warning: Below is part of my health journey this summer. Some pictures will be ugly to look at while other pics show a bit of progress before collapse and failure. To that end my doctors have removed my internal prosthetic which I've had since 2016 (8 years ago).

At present, there is no structure in the empty space except medical cement in my foot. Thus the boot I'm wearing with restricted walking. Sometime later this November or December there will a second surgery (fourth this summer) should the infection(s) be gone.

The last images show a customized 3D printed durable titanium cage which will be implanted in the foot and ankle area. I have no idea what the structure will look like as opposed to the picture shown.

Then we wait again for any new infections to show up. If not, a third - and hopefully final - surgery will fuse the foot to the ankle.

Again, some pictures below will not be pretty to view however, in 2016 I had two very long (14-20") open wounds x 4" wide running along both sides of my calf (top and outer areas) with picc lines directly into the heart and a overworked eou d pump sucking out crap. That experience was a lot worse. I nearly didn't make it mentally or emotionally by the third month after reviving from a fully septic crisis.

- res

May-August 2023 with wound pump

May-August 2023 w/ wound pump; eventually there were 3 open wounds with a
fourth would opening up. Thus the removal of the internal foot-and-ankle prosthetic.

May-August 2023 with wound pump

Third surgery: September 2023 w/ removal of device

Next Surgery is the installation of a structural support device. (To implant
a new internal motility device risks a 35% rejection rate. Thus the cage.)

A third surgery fuses the foot to the ankle sans any infections...

Xrays of a foot fusion to the ankle

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

article link

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.

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

Stefan Milo

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

---

Amazon link

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

NCSE - The National Center for Science Education

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.

---

Amazon link

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

---

Amazon link

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

American Museum of Natural History

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

RockThatSwing

March 4, 2019

Rock That Swing Festival 2019:

Killer Boogie at Deutsches Theater (2 March 2019).