give it back(?)

Not too long ago, Al Gore was awarded (half of) the Nobel Prize for his mission across the world to generate awareness and foster a response to the problem of global warming.  What I thought was interesting was that after receiving his award, Al Gore openly (and in some ways rightly) stated: 

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."[1]

While he may have not intended this to be political issue--and he is certainly in the right on this--one cannot help but notice how it has become a key point in political discourse.  That being the case, it might be safe to assume that if it is such a part of the political rhetoric, it seems to have lost its original moral and spiritual motivation; for we all know that terms like "moral" and "spiritual" are quite bitter on the political palate.  

The statement about the moral and spiritual implications of addressing this issue was not the problem for me; what came next stimulated a little concerned:

"It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes."[2]

I find myself in agreement with the latter half of this statement, but I just cannot seem to endorse the former half.  With respect to the latter half, I do think we have a responsibility to find better ways of producing energy and to create more (energy) efficient means of transportation.  (The combustion engine is certainly in need of a replacement; but I do not think standard battery-electric systems are a better solution).  I also think we are in a better position now--technologically speaking--to find better options and to make them happen than we were several decades ago.  

With respect to the former half of Gore's statement, I do not believe this is the most dangerous challenge we have ever faced.  There are two key reasons why I think this.  First, the absolutism with which this is stated is fundamentally wrong.  At best, it is a relativistic claim about a present dilemma that appears to be progressing with unabated tenacity. (As such, it reflects tendencies and beliefs engendered by the Enlightenment project of the 18th century).  If that were the case, then I would be more prone to accept his argument; but because such is not necessarily the case, his argument does not have the effect that he thinks it does or desires it to have.  

Second, the argument is couched in terms of: this is a (or, "the") serious problem; we are primarily responsible for its existence; therefore, we need to own up to our fault and make immediate amends.  If this is the case, and if such human error has caused global effects; then, yes, this is a dangerous and immensely difficult challenge to address.  It would be like asking a small child to rebuild the estate (i.e., a ginormous house with lots and lots of land) that his or her parents destroyed because of their reckless behavior.  Gore's argument suggests that the only real explanation for global warming is human ill-concern and/or senseless emissions of greenhouse gases for the past few generations.  We, therefore, are like the child being asked to rebuild what out "parents" destroyed (or, at least severely damaged).

But what if, in the analogy, the parents are not necessarily at fault?  What if, in reality, the primary contributer to the problem is not human ill-concern and/or senseless behavior?  What if a leading cause to global warming was completely out of our control?  And what if global warming was not the most dangerous challenge every faced?  What would happen then?  

A short while ago, I came across this web-article, which prompted the question: "Does this mean Gore has to give back his award?"  The article presents the case--one that I argued for a while back--that solar activity is a leading (if not "the" leading) cause for warming and cooling cycles on Earth.  The key word in this case is "cycles", which is a variable commonly overlooked in typical (political) global warming presentations.  My earlier argument, and the article mentioned supports this, was that we really only have just under two centuries of data concerning temperature and climate changes.  (This is one key point where Gore's absolutism fails to convince).  Not only that, but the less than two centuries of data confirms that the world's climate goes in cycles--it has not been on a steady rise which will ultimately end in a global meltdown.  The one constant in these findings and in these cycles is the activity associated with the sun.  And if we think we can control the sun's activity; then, yes, the fight against global warming will be "the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced."  

just too (hypocritically) ironic

A recent CNN headline reads: "Clinton, Obama attack each other for being too negative".  So . . . they individually continue the negativity by negatively criticizing the negative remarks given by the opposing candidate?  (In the words of the great philosopher, Charlienus Brownus, "Oh, good grief.")  I remember this sort of maturity in campaigning when I was in high school. 

(w)right about heaven

I admit that I am, for the most part, a "fan" of the New Testament scholar, NT Wright.  I also admit that I try to read (and/or listen to) all that I can from him.  (His "unofficial website" has been perused by me on many occasions).  Now, this does not mean that I agree 100% with all that he says--I have to have my own views at some point, (w)right?  But when it comes to questions regarding heaven, second coming, recreation, etc; I find myself nodding in agreement with Wright.  

This morning, I came across this article from the internet version of Time magazine, which contains an interview with Wright about his views on heaven.  One of the benefits about this article is that it is a fairly informative summary of Wright's arguments about the nature of resurrection, second coming, restoration of all things, etc.  The down side is that it is only a summary of Wright's arguments.  There is so much more going on beneath what is stated in this article.  One would have to wade through his other writings in order to get a bearing on what he's getting at in this interview.  

I would be interested to hear your thoughts not only about this article but this issue in general.  I think it is good to deal with these sorts of questions openly and honestly.  So, please feel free to create some dialogue in the comment section.  I will do what I can to remain abreast with what is said, and contribute some feedback when I can.  

I've always wondered

In late 2006, I began a general study on the book of Revelation for an adult Bible study at my best friend's church. The study lasted nearly a year, which to me was not long enough to deal with the book as a whole. However, we were able to cover the "big picture" items and begin to acquaint ourselves with some of the "controversial" aspects of the book.

Naturally, three major points of concern were in the back of my mind as we covered the material: 1) the so-called tribulation, 2) the so-called rapture, and 3) the so-called millennial reign of Christ.[1] As we went through the book, I tried my best to present the various (and divergent) positions concerning these three points. There were occasions when I said, "this is where I am on this issue"; but by and large, I kept my positions to myself.

Recently, I taught a course at Cincinnati Christian University on how to interpret the Bible to a group of adult students. The final lecture covered the various types of writing found in the Bible, which naturally led us into a discussion on Revelation. The class, prior to this lecture, had been extremely interactive and asked many good questions. When we began to deal with the genre and details of Revelation, one of the students asked me where I stood. I gave a brief response which was reflective of much of what was presented in the original Bible study.

Since that time, I have wondered what my position would actually be--if I were to categorize it. When I was doing my research for the Bible study, I made sure that I had before me commentaries and other resources from each of the major theological positions. At the time, my goal was not to determine where I stood in relation to these positions; instead, my intent was to obtain a fair understanding of each position so that I could present it as an option.

This morning, I came across a quiz developed by a theology student in Manchester, England. The quiz, if you follow the link provided, is designed to "reveal" one's theological position regarding the so-called "end-times". I gladly took the quiz and here are the results:

You scored as a Moltmannian Eschatology

Jürgen Moltmann is one of the key eschatological thinkers of the 20th century. Eschatology [for Moltmann] is not only about heaven and hell, but God's plan to make all things new. This should spur us on to political and social action in the present.

(Rating compared to the other Eschatological views):
Moltmannian 95%
Preterist 80%
Amillenialist 75%
Postmillennialist 50%
Premillennialist 30%
Dispensationalist 15%
Left Behind 5%

I must admit that I was a bit surprised at the post- and pre-millennial percentages; but the ambiguity in some of the questions most likely contributed to those figures. I was, however, utterly shocked to have any percentage related to the "Left Behind" theology. The presence of such a figure leads me to want to go and be baptized in the Jordan River seven times.
__________________________________________
[1] I say "so-called" on these points because the terms are simply categorical labels used to describe these topics of discussion. Not only that, but I tend to hold modified conclusions on these points that differ from those commonly advanced.