Japanabaptist

Having fun on Youtube these days...

2008-05-12T22:49:00.001+09:00

A new song for you:

Incomplete.

2008-03-19T00:05:00.002+09:00

From an article about Richard Rorty, whose ideas I sometimes like to try and wade through:

But in his zeal to embrace American pragmatism and democracy, Rorty has adopted—perhaps inadvertently at first, but now more intentionally—a new religious faith that gives him the unified picture of the universe he has always longed for. Rorty has come to accept that all competing worldviews are ultimately competing commitments to some orienting faith, and that no conflict between worldviews can be resolved by an appeal to reason or objective standards of truth. At their core, all worldviews require faith and hope.

The return

2008-02-04T20:26:00.001+09:00

Hey folks. I have been busy working on other blog sites because we just finished an album and I am working on getting the word out. So check it all out if you are so inclined...

homepage

Myspace site

Facebook site

Words to ponder from C.S. Lewis

2008-01-31T14:57:00.000+09:00

From the essay "The World's Last Night":

...But there is worse to come. “Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken prediction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (apparent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention...

A Call to Christian Anarchy

2008-01-12T21:12:00.000+09:00

Ho boy, those two books were at the center of my focus just about ten years ago. But I haven't talked much about them for a long time, gets one too many frowny looks. Here comes round 2??

Jacques Ellul was a brilliant French thinker who saw profound similarities between Anarchism and the view of government espoused by Jesus (and, he argues, the rest of the Bible as well). Of course, the secular anarchists were too optimistic in thinking humans could ever govern themselves. But they were right about the evils of government. Government is ruled by Satan and the rebellious principalities and powers (which, unfortunately, Ellul thinks are mythic symbols of human evil).

The Kingdom Jesus established is anarchistic in that it recognizes God alone as the arche (supreme power). It thus lives free from all other powers (an-arche [anarchy] means without authority). Governments are part of the fallen, oppressed world system that has been done away with in Christ.

In Ellul's estimation, it's not appropriate for Kingdom people to either support or revolt against governments. This gives them too much credit. Rather, following the example of Jesus, we should ignore them as much as possible, put up with them as much as we need to, and stay focused on living out the radical Kingdom. If we do this, then we, like Jesus, will find ourselves revolting against the government (and culture). We are, most fundamentally, called to be non-conformists. Our service to the world is the way our counter-cultural lives expose the invalidity of all forms of government by manifesting the reign of God.

I would add Christi-anarchy by Dave Andrews to the two titles that Greg Boyd mentions in this post.

2007 Pictures

2007-12-31T09:57:00.001+09:00

We made a (very simple) music video!!

2007-12-18T20:34:00.000+09:00

When Will Christ Return

2007-11-19T14:36:00.000+09:00

Hey Graham, sorry to basically repost your entire post over here, but I wanted to keep it here for later. So in case anyone is wondering, all credit to Graham for his excerpt from David Kroll's When Will Christ Return:

Is the coming of Christ on clouds to be taken literally? How is this expression used in scripture? In Isaiah 19:1, in a prophecy concerning Egypt, it is written, “See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.” In Psalm 18:9, David, in a psalm of praise to God for deliverance from his enemies, writes, “He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet.” In another psalm of praise, David speaks of God in this manner: “He makes the clouds His chariot and rides on the wings of the wind” (Psalm 104:3). Coming in the clouds, riding on the wings of the wind, like many other expressions concerning the activity of God in the scriptures, are simply expressions of God’s magnitude of power and presence as He intervenes in the affairs of men. These are not literal expressions of how God appears.

...Christ uses an object lesson to demonstrate to His disciples that when they see come to pass all the things He had just predicted; the wars, famines, earthquakes, the gospel going to the world, etc., His coming would be at hand. Christ said just as they would know that summer is near when they see leaves come out on a fig tree, so they would know that the end was about to occur when they see all these events taking place. Christ then dates the events He is discussing by saying that the generation He was addressing would not pass until all the things He was speaking of would come to pass. All “these things” included His return (verse 30). What generation is Christ addressing? To what time was He dating these events?

It must be remembered that Christ is addressing His disciples in the Olivet discourse. He is answering their questions about when the temple will be destroyed and His return will take place. In addressing His disciples, He says to them, “Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.” Christ then makes the statement about their generation not passing until all these things are fulfilled. The “you” Christ is addressing are his disciples. Christ is not addressing us or anyone else. It must be understood that when we read the Olivet discourse, we are reading a record of Christ addressing His disciples. When Christ tells them “when you see all these things,” He is telling them that it is they who will see all these things, not others living thousands of years into the future.

The scriptural evidence strongly indicates that it was the generation that was living during the time of Christ’s ministry that lived to experience the events Christ prophesied. A spiritual return of Christ in judgment, through the vehicle of human armies, is not out of line with other similar events in Scriptural history. The Old Testament is full of accounts of God’s coming in various ways to bring judgment upon nations. Did God physically appear in these events? No, He didn’t. Instead, He appeared through human armies and other natural phenomena to accomplish His purpose.

Every disciple whose writings make up the New Testament addressed their audiences from the perspective that Christ would return during their lifetime. They believed and taught this because of what Christ taught them. The written record of Christ’s teachings strongly point to a first-century return and establishment of the Kingdom. This return was not a physical return. It was a spiritual return whereby Christ facilitated His purpose through the Roman armies. That purpose was to bring judgment upon those refusing to accept Jesus Christ as Messiah and the New Covenant system that He came to establish.

There is no doubt that the death and resurrection of Christ caused the sacrificial system to become obsolete. Through His death and resurrection, Christ became our High Priest. There no longer was a need for the priestly system of the Old Covenant. For Gentiles converting to Christianity, the Christ event was confirmation enough that a new system was being established. For many Jews converting to Christianity, the Old Covenant was still felt to be of significance. This obsolete system did not pass away at the death of Christ. While it no longer held any spiritual significance before God, it nevertheless continued to function physically for another forty years. Those who continued to adhere to this system believed it still to be a viable system and necessary for a proper relationship with God. This included Christian Jews who still wanted to cling to many aspects of the old system. This misplaced adherence to an obsolete system would end only when the means to facilitate this system would be destroyed. This destruction would confirm that the new had replaced the old in its entirety.

Therefore, the establishment of the New Covenant was a gradual process that took place between the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ and His return in the destruction/judgment of A.D. 66 to 73. The Old and New Covenants co-existed during this period of time. The Old Covenant would not be wiped out until the destruction of the temple, which was the centerpiece of that covenant. There is good scriptural evidence for this position.

...The conclusion to this matter is that the last days are past. The New Testament last days were a specific time frame relating to the transition from the Old to the New Covenant. This transition facilitated the movement from death unto life. This transition facilitated the establishment of the spiritual Kingdom and our ability to be reconciled to God and to be given eternal life. As Paul said, “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54). Paul said that the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. The death and resurrection of Christ provide for the forgiveness of sin and thus facilitate the removal of death. The victory over death has been accomplished through the death, resurrection and return of Christ. The return of Christ is as critical to this process as His death and resurrection. The scriptures clearly show that the victory over death was not complete until the complete removal of the Old Covenant system. This didn’t happen until the destruction of the temple and the judgment upon Israel.

Graham asks, "Are we living in the last days"

2007-11-14T09:20:00.000+09:00

I have had discussions lately about Matthew 24:34 and the problems it poses for what I was raised to believe about what we called the "end times". That particular verse has become a good example for me of the lengths evangelicals are willing to go to make a verse say things it clearly does not, because it doesn't fit with their view of the end times. With that in mind, Graham's post today was an interesting read:

I don't hold very popular views on the end times. That is, I didn't think I did. Around the turn of the Millenium, I wrote my Spurgeons College thesis on the significance of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. At the time, any one who got into discussion with me on the subject, soon began to look at my like I had two heads.
The 'star' of my disseration was J.S. Russll, who wrote his classic The Parousia in 1878. Russell concluded that Jesus returned, as he had promised, in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. The thing is, this view is becomming more and more acceptable, thanks to the likes of N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight and Tim King...

He then quotes an article by Tim King that goes into detail on why we are living in the first days of the new creation, rather than the last days of the old one. Makes one think.

I am not sucking up, I actually think there is something to this...

2007-10-25T15:23:00.000+09:00

“Women are the peacemakers. The world will not achieve peace without the energy and the work of women.” So writes Dolores Huerta of the United Farmworkers. Gandhi said the same thing in 1947: “Women are the natural messengers of the gospel of nonviolence, if only they will realize their high estate…. It is for American women to show what power women can be in the world. You can become a power for peace by refusing to be carried away by the flood-tide of the pseudo-science glorifying self-indulgence that is engulfing the West today and apply your minds instead to the science of nonviolence…. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women.”

From Godspace

Who God is gonna use...

2007-09-16T21:24:00.000+09:00

"I had a prof one time... He said, 'Class, you will forget almost everything I will teach you in here, so please remember this: that God spoke to Balaam through his ass, and He has been speaking through asses ever since. So, if God should choose to speak through you, you need not think too highly of yourself. And, if on meeting someone, right away you recognize what they are, listen to them anyway'."

- Rich Mullins

Mr. Moltmann's merry musings....

2007-09-03T13:20:00.001+09:00

A good clarifying quote from Moltmann...

It is the task of the Christian community to remind the civil community unceasingly, through word, act, and presence, of the righteousness and justice of God and of his coming kingdom. The church is not like a sect, separate, and there only for itself. It is there for all human beings, and for nature in this earthly creation. The future for which Christians hope is not the consummation of the church in the downfall of this world, nor the salvation of the redeemed at the world’s end; it is the kingdom of God, which will redeem everything and put all things to rights, the kingdom which will come “on earth as it is in heaven.”

The church has no “public claim” for itself, but only for the cause of the kingdom of God it propounds. Its task is not to “churchify” the world but to prepare the way for the coming kingdom. There is no such thing as a nonpolitical Christianity.

From Ryan through Mike...

Notable point I wanted to jot down...

2007-08-30T21:51:00.000+09:00

In Luke 4, when Jesus is giving the Jubilee proclamation, he quotes Isaiah 61 saying:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor

Interesting, and significant, thinks me, that he leaves out words from Isaiah, breaks in the middle of the sentence in fact, to eliminate "the day of the Lord's vengeance".

Texts of Terror

2007-08-24T10:54:00.000+09:00

In her post "Texts of terror: Dead concubines and war" Christy re-raises those tough questions about how the Old Testament should be viewed:

"The men of Gibeah surrounded the old man’s house, pounding on the doors and demanding that the Levite come out so they could have sex with him. The host went outside and said, “This man is my guest! You can’t do that, but I’m open to compromise. Why don’t you take my virgin daughter and this concubine instead? Do whatever you want to them, just don’t do anything to this man.”

Save it for later...

2007-08-12T09:23:00.000+09:00

I wanted to save this post from Graham, regarding tragedy and how we view God:

It seems that John Piper is up to his old tricks.
If you've read this blog for a while you will remember me regretting how Piper always seems to respond to major catasrophe's with, "The Lord did it!" He did it after Beslan. He did it after the Tsunami. He did it following New Orleans. And he's done it again, this time regarding the collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis.
Thankfully, John Piper does not hold to that most spiteful form of Calvinism that would say that people deserve whatever happens to them, as it is a reflection of their own sin. In fact, he would go out of his way to denounce such nonsense. No, this disaster has not come upon you because of anything that you did or didn't do. It's happened because God wanted it to! Or, in the words of Piper to his 11-year old daugher, 'God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.'
It is not so much the theology here that bothers me, as much as the pastoral response. (Though, of course, the latter is grounded in the fomer.) The fact that Piper seems to respond to every event of this kind with a stoic, "The Lord willed it", rather than a Biblical, "Why, God?!" is what really concerns me.
The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.
In other words, rather than mourning over the loss and pain involved, we should recognise this as God's great altar call. He is willing to wreck your life in order to save your wicked soul!
How can he so easily discount people's lives - silly or otherwise? Why isn't he teaching his flock to lament? Why is he so challenged by the horror of these disasters that he has to hide behind an arbitrary and unquestionnable divine will?
The answer is that Piper has been well-schooled in the theology of Jonathan Edwards. I can understand the appeal, because I have been there. I preached this same God for over a decade. And, to this day, it was no great theological argument that swayed me. It was, rather, the humanity of Christ. I simply noticed that the impassible God I spoke of looked nothing like Jesus Christ whatsoever. And I wonder if its that thought - and the lack of anything like that humanity - that so troubles me about Piper's (repeated) response.

Again, just something I wanted to save for later...

2007-08-04T15:53:00.000+09:00

From a guy named "Rev" in Oz:

Dave Andrews hosted the morning session on Saturday, and it was the best message on the Sermon on the mount that I have ever heard.

He started talking about judging, and showed how we actually are to judge both ourselves and the actions of others, but doing so realizing we will be judged by the same measure. And then began to unpack the sermon on the mount Matthew 5-7 as an ethical framework for how we are to live in the kingdom of God.

The problem with so much of how we have interpreted this sermon, is based on an incorrect reading of the text. This incorrect reading has made Jesus' teaching here, seem impractical, and therefore must be talking about heaven, or some spiritual ideal. However Dave showed us very convincingly that a proper reading of the text will help us to understand how we are to live in a redemptive way.

In the incorrect reading we see Jesus contrast the old way, (the law and tradition), with the new way (Jesus' more complete teaching). But this is where we wind up in trouble as it seems impractical. ie you have heard it said do not murder (old way) but I say if you are angry with your brother, or call him names, you are still in danger of judgement (new way). So this seems completely impractical, how are we to not be angry or have disagreements with our brothers. Those of us who live in close community know exactly how impossible this seems.

But Dave shows us that this is not the way to understand this teaching, it is not the old way versus the new way, but is rather laid out this way: The old way

The repeating cycles that even adherence to the old way doesn't fix

directives for living in a redeemed world.

So we have the old way: Do not murder

But then Jesus points out: But even if you don't murder, you still have anger, and hatred and unredeemed relationships, so the root of the problem doesn't get dealt with.

so

Jesus instructions for how to live: If you are offering your religious duties and realize that you and your brother or sister are in conflict, forget your worship for now, go and be reconciled with your brother or sister, and then be reconciled with God.

Or

Do not commit adultery

but

burning with lust doesn't allow us to live a life transformed

so

remove yourself from temptation

Now this was a very quick para phrase of what Dave explained, so if I did damage to the integrity of the message, I welcome correction. And please feel free to join in some conversation over this. Dave also talked about how important the beatitudes are and suggested it might be the stimulus for a renewal movement in our own lives. You can learn more at wecan.be

rev

Donald Miller on Discipleship

2007-07-23T12:52:00.000+09:00

Discipleship is waking up every few days and saying "Wow, I was really wrong about that." Isn't it? That's what's happening to everyone who follows Jesus. So if we're are waking up every couple days and saying, "Yep, I am still right!", you are probably not following God very well...

- Donald Miller in a lecture at Seattle Pacific University

One of those quotes I wanted to save for later...

2007-06-19T14:56:00.000+09:00

From an article by Timothy Luke Johnson, via Eliot...

Our situation vis-à-vis the authority of Scripture is not unlike that of abolitionists in nineteenth-century America. During the 1850s, arguments raged over the morality of slave-holding, and the exegesis of Scripture played a key role in those debates. The exegetical battles were one-sided: all abolitionists could point to was Galatians 3:28 and the Letter of Philemon, while slave owners had the rest of the Old and New Testaments, which gave every indication that slaveholding was a legitimate, indeed God-ordained social arrangement, one to which neither Moses nor Jesus nor Paul raised a fundamental objection. So how is it that now, in the early twenty-first century, the authority of the scriptural texts on slavery and the arguments made on their basis appear to all of us, without exception, as completely beside the point and deeply wrong?

The answer is that over time the human experience of slavery and its horror came home to the popular conscience-through personal testimony and direct personal contact, through fiction like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and, of course, through a great Civil War in which ghastly numbers of people gave their lives so that slaves could be seen not as property but as persons. As persons, they could be treated by the same law of love that governed relations among all Christians, and could therefore eventually also realize full civil rights within society. And once that experience of their full humanity and the evil of their bondage reached a stage of critical consciousness, this nation could neither turn back to the practice of slavery nor ever read the Bible in the same way again.

Many of us who stand for the full recognition of gay and lesbian persons within the Christian communion find ourselves in a position similar to that of the early abolitionists-and of the early advocates for women’s full and equal roles in church and society. We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts. To justify this trust, we invoke the basic Pauline principle that the Spirit gives life but the letter kills (2 Corinthians 3:6). And if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture...

Truest thing I ever heard

2007-06-14T22:24:00.000+09:00

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Someday

2007-06-14T17:38:00.000+09:00

You know, someday I will really go after it and makes this a good blog again. Someday...

Are all athletes going to heaven?

2007-05-11T15:36:00.000+09:00

I love how Graham says this:

Imagine gathering together at the Olympic Games with Atheletes from across the Globe. Whilst there, one of the delegates from Tuftenstein strikes up a discussion on the nature of athletics. Some object to the term, considering themselves to be - for example - swimmers, not athletes. Others speak of the particular elements that they would consider essential in running, only to be challenged by Judo competitors, Marksmen, Weight-lifters and Golfers. So, the conversation progresses into the wee hours of the morning as each athlete present seeks to articulate the essence of what it is they share in common.

(Every now and then, an observer will listen-in and express surprise that all of these different people can call themselves athletes yet they can't even agree on what it is that unites them. Some go so far as to argue that this is certain evidence that the Olympic Games do not truly exist, at least not in any meaningful way!)

The trouble is that each competitor is careful to avoid promoting their own perspective (or what it is they love about their sport), out of a desire to find a common answer that all could assent to. Some question whether certain participants should even be there (Rhythmic Gymnastics?!) and others wonder whether it's even appropriate to have this conversation in the absence of the "Special" athletes.

After 3 days of careful deliberations, an answer is finally settled on. Only of finally rejecting the runner-up (which was "we wear lycra"), did everyone manage to agree that the one thing uniting everyone gathered at the Olympic Games was they were Gathered at the Olympic Games!

On the other side of the world, a few kids kicked around a football on a mild Winter afternoon. The didn't have access to a Footbal Pitch, so they used the bit of grass at the edge of the local Superstore's enormous Car Park. No TV Cameras televised their match. No one watching - or playing - the game would have considered any of the children to be Athletes. No one wore lycra. Yet, they managed to do one thing that afternoon that, in three days of discussion, the Olympic Athletes had failed to achieve.

They played the game. And they loved it!

300

2007-03-14T18:57:00.000+09:00

A good post from Eliot on the movie 300 and how a little distance in history changes everyone's perspective:

Judging from what I've read of Frank Miller's admittedly creative work (300, The Dark Knight Returns, Martha Washington, Sin City), his highest ideals are machismo, the Will to Power, and redemptive violence. So the Spartans are a good fit for him. But really, their virtues and practices were pretty close to those of the SS, the slave-owning Confederacy, and the apartheid government in South Africa. What gives me a bad feeling is that a few hundred years from now, when people have forgotten what those regimes were really like, maybe there will be darkly glamorous films glorifying their martial valour? I mean, the SS were fanatical and highly skilled warriors who fought to the death for their country, and they had fashionable uniforms and cool-looking weapons...

Read the whole post...

A quote that I liked and want to think more on later...

2007-03-01T12:09:00.000+09:00

As a tentative starting point for our discussion, I want to suggest that the ancient views of cosmogony were not material to matters of faith as far as the Biblical writers were concerned. This concern is a matter of more recent import particularly as it is presented by the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

For example, a comparison of the Babylonian Enuma Elish which contains an account of the creation of man by the gods with the Biblical account shows that the main concern of the Biblical account is to highlight the creation of mankind and the institution of the Sabbath day as the ultimate goal of the creation. This is intrinsic to Deuteronomic theology which also contrasts sharply with Babylonian theologies on the matter of the high degree of concern that God places upon the members of the community that He brought out of Egypt. The poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger are the primary focus of the worship. It is how these are treated that determines the blessing that God would bring to Israel. In contrast, the Babylonian systems focused on the care and feeding of the gods as the primary concern. Mankind was created to relieve the lesser gods of the care and feeding requirements placed upon them by the greater gods.

Christian theology since the time of Augustine (4th Century AD) moves in the direction of the Babylonian system rather than in the Deuteronmic. The sacrifice of Christ is the primary means by which an individual is judged to be righteous rather than the concern that he shows for the 'least of these' (Matthew 25:31ff). My greatest objections to the agenda of the Fundamentalist is that the primary error of a substitutionary atonement is only perpetuated as the church is continaully made to focus on matters which are peripheral to the primary intent of the Biblical text. For example, Genesis 1 is treated as a scientific account of the creation in opposition to the accounts of science in general. The message of the text is left on the periphery.

Because God is so I kind, I realize my need of him, rather than because he is so mad at me...

2007-02-12T23:26:00.000+09:00

I am reading Leslie Newbigin lately, best stuff I have read in along time. I just wanted to post one quote from the book "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" that I haven't been able to get out of my head since I read it. It was just one of those things I have personally found to be so true, that when someone states it well, I start to see the theme replayed again and again in daily life. Anyway, the quote:

... Even more repulsive is the idea that in order to communicate the gospel to them one must, as it were, ferret out their hidden sins, show that their goodness is not so good after all, as a precondition for presenting the offer of grace in Christ. It is indeed true that in the presence of the cross we come to know that, whoever we are, we are sinners before the grace of God. But that knowledge is the result, not the precondition of grace. It is in the light of the amazing grace of God in Jesus Christ that I am compelled to say, "God, be merciful to me a sinner".

Chikyuuondanka

2007-02-06T13:18:00.000+09:00

It's 18 degrees outside today. I would feel totally great about that if I hadn't just watched that Al Gore film...