A parallel and a warning

I remember another dream I had as a kid, where in this dream I apparently had to take a nap (or hide) in a dark, enclosed spot all afternoon, not to come out until evening. To be honest, I'm not sure why I had to be asleep or in hiding all afternoon. I recall having a twinge of fear that my life might be in danger if I dared go outside before sundown. I remember being impatient, waking up a couple times, only to learn that it wasn't evening yet. Finally, I woke up (still in the dream) in a car, looked outside, saw it was dusk, and checked the time. It was 5:30 PM. I was looking eastward, through the back of the car and at the road behind me.

The image above doesn't quite capture what I remember seeing in my dream. I envisioned an actual highway, with some of those streetlights that you see on Texas highways (I actually remember the detail, not sure why). This is a parking lot, and even if I were on a highway, it still wouldn't quite fit, because neighboring I-35 runs north-south, not east-west like in my dream. The time was also 4:40 PM... not that it matters, but I figured I'd throw it in to further show the difference between my dream 15-ish years ago and my reality today.

But, like my dream, I did spend this afternoon inside a dark room. I went to the Lakeville Theatre to watch 2012 ["http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/"], a 2 PM showing, one that finished in time for me to get outside just past 4:30. I had done some reading and youtube video-watching in the past, and I decided I needed to see this movie to see what it predicted might happen. Last weekend, while killing time with a friend while waiting for other friends to show up, my friend and I briefly engaged in a conversation about this movie, about how some critic apparently deemed it the worst movie he'd ever seen. I'm not a movie critic, and I never will be, but this movie was about more than plot, effects, the technical works. It's about the end of the world, about how the very fabric of life as we know and understand it has the potential to crumble beneath our feet. We think of the ground as solid, we think of our institution of family and friends as solid, but the truth is everything gets lost in the pandemonium and fear. Granted, there are plenty of arguments supporting both sides of the issue, and one I will not engage in this post.

One lesson I learned from "2012," though, is humanity will be doomed if we can't figure out how to take care of each other. We've always had issues with favoritism, and of protecting our best and brightest (and richest, I might add) at the expense of the common people. If the apocalypse does indeed come, I fear we will still fail to take into account even the least of us, to ensure that they have a fair chance at survival. The argument of "life isn't fair" is there, and it's quite frankly a fair one, but one that must be thrown out in life-and-death situations, especially on a massive scale. If the events of December 21st, 2012 are as, well, catastrophic as the movie suggests, the only hope humanity has is a collective change of heart for the better. Time will tell.

Sermon on the Sabbath

Passage 1: When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

--Numbers 15:32-36

Passage 2: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and sacrifice," you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.

--Matthew 12:1-8 (abridged versions also in Mark 2:23-28, and in Luke 6:1-5)

Passage 3: After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes. In these lay many invalids -- blind, lame, and paralyzed. One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me." Jesus said to him, "Stand up, take your mat, and walk." At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.

Now that day was a sabbath. So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, "It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat. But he answered them, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Take up your mat and walk'." They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take it up and walk'?" Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had disappeared in the crowd that was there. Later Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you." The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working." For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

--John 5:1-18

I want to begin by reflecting on these two quotations:

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath."

"My Father is still working, and I also am working."

It didn't take me too long in my reading through Numbers to find a potential contradiction within the Scriptures. I was right; each of the Gospels (with which I feel I have a reasonable amount of familiarity) present an "otherwise" of sorts. Now, it is tempting to look at this and say, "Aha! The Bible isn't infallible! See, it contradicts itself!" But, we must remember, the first passage was written thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years in advance. We have to look deeper, for if the Bible were to have any value at all, it is imperative that we take it in its entire body of work.

The storyline in Numbers takes place during the Israelites wandering on their way from Egypt to, well, roughly present-day Israel. Back in a time when walking was the primary mode of transportation (and general geographical knowledge may not have been top-notch, let alone the availability of GPS systems), it's going to take some time and a lot of patience to get from point A to point B. There's one section that continuously talks about a cloud (God) residing over the tabernacle, but when the cloud would move, it meant it was time for the people to set out and walk. When the cloud stopped and set over an area, it was a signal that this was the place to camp. Sometimes the could (and consequently the people) would stay camped for a day, sometimes a few days, sometimes a week, depending on what the cloud saw fit. (Numbers 9:15-23)

But there were a lot of issues with anxiety and despair among the people. Being stuck in what is considered "no-man's-land" will do that. In a couple instances God wanted to do away with them, but because of Moses' and Aaron's faith and begging He relented. God's human emotions and tendencies seem to be on display often in this early book. Like the Israelites, it appears God is just as desperate that the people stay with Him and trust Him as He slowly and systematically (not to mention, safely) tries to lead them to where they are to end up. And to me it's kind of a startling concept: God as fallible? Is this really possible? (I mean, how do you explain that even God can fall prey to such human emotions as anxiety and despair... and rage?)

Let's pretend for a second that the atheists are right and God somehow doesn't exist (which, as a Theist, is kinda hard for me to do). [I guess this means the cloud and the tabernacle don't exist, either.] Then let's assume that the Israelites' travels across the Sinai Peninsula are still historically accurate. I mean, you look at other trips in early history, for example Alexander the Great's conquests through the Middle East, and all the way to the Indus River. How would the people have narrated the trials of such travels? There's a possibility that mention would have been made about how many of the travelers went insane and killed themselves. It's possible that word would have spread about who decided to return to Egypt and vanished (because they didn't know where they were, and couldn't figure out how they got to where they had been), who decided they needed meat and somehow got trampled by a boar-type animal, and other acts of insanity.

The point is, even back then, it was human nature to adopt the "what have you done for me lately" mentality, because quite frankly our memories are terrible as to the kind acts we've received years ago. I remember growing up and hearing about how the Israelites kept forgetting God and He'd have to find a strong way to remind them, "Hey! I'm still taking care of you! Don't forget about Me!"

So, allowing that God did and does exist, and that there is some credence to this story (even though I am both somewhat amazed and skeptical as to the intense detail of all of this), we turn to the sabbath-related ordinance. I mean, there were a lot of rules listed during this time of travel, and apparently stoning a guy who's picking up sticks is an appropriate law. [Now, I'm aware of the irony that I also happen to be working on the (Christian) sabbath, but no one's stoned me in all these years, so I figure I'm fine at this point.] What would be the purpose of this? Why stone an individual to death merely for the infraction of picking up sticks on a [Saturday]?

This law looks ridiculous if taken by itself. The important key word here is "context." In Exodus (or Leviticus) there's an intensive series of commands concerning building the tabernacle, and a lot of the other commands were in such a way that the folk back then needed to understand it. In ancient Egypt, if a man whose house he built collapsed and killed its owners inside, he needed to be put to death. In modern America, if the same thing happened, he'd probably get sent to jail for manslaughter (or perhaps murder, if the judge and jury decided that the faulty house-building was intentional). But he wouldn't have been stoned. Stoning was merely a common method of punishment back in the Israelites' day, much like crucifixion during the Roman era. This stoning of a man picking up sticks on the sabbath was merely a commandment shaped to the human societal code, a punishment at a level that was acceptable to the people of that day.

So that takes care of stoning. But what about the simple concept of working (or playing) on the sabbath as an infraction? I will argue that this particular value is what's timeless. Regardless of the amount of truth in the creationist story "and God rested on the seventh day and blessed it..." (paraphrased from Genesis 2:2-3) I hear there is some degree of peace when it comes to doing something... different. Nowadays, everyone seems to be some sort of workaholic, either by habit or by necessity (or in my case, I'm a bum). But, as human beings we still need a break from whatever we spend our days doing. Working, gluing one's eyes to a computer... the purpose of a sabbath is to do something different (in most cases rest, pray and reflect). AJ Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Biblically, is a confessed workaholic. But he also discovered he immensely enjoys resting on the sabbath. I imagine more people would take this view if they disciplined themselves well enough to follow through (myself included).

My last point deals with the supposed contradiction in the Gospels. In Passage 2, Jesus explains that King David fed his companions with bread at the temple on the sabbath for the same reasons that He was feeding his disciples: they were hungry. In Passage 3, Jesus heals a man who had been sick for quite some time, and it also happened to be the sabbath. The message: doing good and showing common sense were more important than sticking to some tradition at the expense of helping others. In other words, while it is important to revere the sabbath, it is not the most important thing. Jesus' message reflected the idea of God as Love, and the greatest commandments being "love God," and "love your neighbor." Revering the sabbath fulfills the "love God" commandment; feeding or tending to others by any means necessary fulfills the "love your neighbor" commandment.

"For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." When in doubt, ask God what to do.

"My Father is still working, and I also am working." Love God, and love your neighbor.

Picking up (sort of) where I left off

"This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118:24)

OK, so today isn't Sunday (or Saturday, depending on who you ask concerning which day the Sabbath really occurs). And that's not the main topic of today's post, although I found myself pleasantly surprised with the decent weather we've been enjoying up in Northfield. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a warm and sunny winter this year. I really wouldn't.

On to today's topic...

Alternate post title 1: "Who'd'a thunk the book of Numbers could be PG-13?"

Alternate post title 2: "Sacredness of a woman's womb"

[Now you see why I rated this post PG-13. I'm a guy, and I kind of feel weird talking about this, but at the same time, today's reading combined with relatively recent past readings kinda made me think. So here goes...]

After having read AJ Jacobs' book (and currently in the process of re-reading it), I found myself a little more interested in going through the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, for those who care about political correctness). Today I found myself starting to go through the book of Numbers, the point in the Torah I had stopped a couple years ago during a previous attempt ["http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/so.html"] ["http://n8daoggblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/im-no-job.html"] to read through the early Scriptures. I came across this passage about a ritual people would perform when a man would bring in his presumed-unfaithful wife to the priest. I'm not going to quote the whole thing (it's rather long), but I will break it down into sections.

The first section (Numbers 5:12-13,15): "If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband ... (basically a couple more instances that could apply to the situation) ... then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour ... (plus a couple other provisions for said offering)." This section is the statement of the issue, in this case, infidelity or suspected infidelity. I will go ahead and say now that while this ritual, like many others in the early books, are considered obsolete, there is a point to it I will explain after the story is all told.

The second section (Numbers 5:16-18): "Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse." In the rest of this section, the priest makes the woman take an oath to drink a water that would put a curse on her if she were unfaithful (specific details to the curse's effect not intended for children 12 and under). Conversely, if she had been faithful, then the water would have no effect on her.

The third section basically has the priest write down the curse and then wash it off into the water, then has the woman drink it. The priest will also take the grain offering that the man (the accuser) gave him, and offer it to God. It can be a potentially very humiliating scene, one that apparently stays with the woman (if she is indeed to have been unfaithful) for the rest of her life.

Were I to have come across this passage anytime earlier in time, I probably would have brushed it off and called it unimportant. After all, Christians say that Jesus' death and resurrection made many rituals as outlined in the Hebrew Bible defunct. But having read Jacobs' book has drawn me back, to understand the significance of them. The passage goes on to say (Numbers 5:29-31): "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."

In his book, Jacobs tackles the issue of impurity, specifically not touching women in the first week after their discharge (like I said, content may not be suitable for children 12 and under). At first glance, it seems quite absurd that said individuals would be considered "unclean" at this time, but what he had gathered was that it signified respect for them, and for the loss of a potential life, rather than an act of shunning them. In the movie "The DaVinci Code" (and I assume the book as well), the characters talk about the womb's sacredness, specifically the Virgin Mary's. The chalice (for those who don't receive traditional communion, it's a cup in which wine or sometimes grape juice is poured and given for churchgoers to receive towards the end of a Sunday service) also resembles this symbol.

This argument could very well translate to the significance behind this ritual and argument against infidelity. Going off the sacredness-of-the-womb theme, if one is unfaithful, it could be seen as a loss of sacredness. The individual who cheats defiles her womb, and therefore (at least symbolically) part of her dies. I can understand that. I myself find beauty in purity, and in today's society it appears to be quite sparse.

On the other hand, I don't exactly think it's a good idea nor necessary to render a woman barren via some kind of weird potion in response for infidelity. I mean, I understand the kind of frustration that might come with a loss of purity and sacredness, but that's just taking it too far. Besides, the same passage also lists the woman as completely under her husband's authority. Why should he decide what happens to her body? And if it's right that he should have such powers, shouldn't she then have at least a say in what happens to his body? (As in, castration for him sleeping with another woman?)

Maybe we're focusing on the wrong part of the moral. Far too many people are obsessed with sin and punishment, as if everyone should have their reproductive system removed when they make even one mistake. If that were true, the human population would probably be 1/10 of what it is now. Instead, maybe we should celebrate purity and those who succeed in staying pure. That's the tactic teachers are encouraged to employ with at-risk children; focusing on positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement. At the very least, we could let God handle all those negative cases. He would do a much better job at it than all of us.

If I ever write a book...

Author's foreword: Below is an excerpt of writing I'd been working on for a few days. If I ever write a book in my lifetime, this would be one of several topics I would choose, either as a stand-alone book or a chapter. With more research, this argument will become more polished, but for now, I humbly present this piece, with hopes of using it in a more prestigious place down the line.

________________________________________________________________

A few weeks ago I bought and read this book ["http://www.amazon.com/Year-Living-Biblically-Literally-Possible/dp/0743291476/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215441601&sr=8-2"]. I’d seen the online video ["http://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html"] about this adventure several months before, but I came across it again at a bookstore. I was curious as to other people’s forays into religious/spiritual disciplines, specifically the forays of skeptics. The book itself is quite something. AJ Jacobs ["http://www.ted.com/speakers/a_j_jacobs.html"] spent a year—a little more, actually—studying and living the Bible, obeying every single law with no questions asked (no picking and choosing for this guy!). That meant growing his beard out, wearing only clothes with single linens (it’s sinful to mix fibers), stoning adulterers, praying multiple times each day.

Ultimately, his thoughts at the end of the book on the Bible and “Cafeteria Religion” hit the nail on the head, for the most part. Due to copyright concerns, I will only quote bits and pieces, and try and outline his argument as best as I can.

Argument one: everyone practices cafeteria religion, including fundamentalists. How do we know this? If they didn’t, “they'd kick women out of church for saying hello ("the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak..."--1 Corinthians 14:34) and boot out men for talking about the "Tennessee Titans" ("make no mention of the names of other gods..."--Exodus 23:13)” (AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, p. 328). In other words, people would treat each other like crap for the sake of staying true to the Bible. Many of the fundamentalists I have met are quite nice, and treat others around them well. There is no way I see them criticizing their fellow human beings for putting their hand over the heart during the American national anthem, for instance (as this would be an act of worshiping the United States of America).

Also, some self-professed “true Christians” (like Pat Robertson) have a penchant for running their mouth. For in James 3, leaders are encouraged to discipline their words; if they fail, they are judged by God with greater harshness than lay persons: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sister, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle.” (3:1-2) James’ reason for this? “How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell.” In other words, if you read the tabloids about the latest celebrity gossip, even false rumors ruin their lives and the lives of everyone who care about them.

I bring up the last paragraph largely to show that many of these critics pick and choose themselves. They accuse moderate Christians (and their counterparts criticize moderate Jews, and Muslims) of being sinners in this regard, when in fact they too are sinners. Major sinners. Not to mention cafeteria practitioners themselves.

Argument two: practicing cafeteria religion is not only unavoidable, but necessary for true faith. Sounds heretical, right? Let me explain. The concepts of faith and religion have long been based on doctrine, beliefs taught either by God or by humans, interpreted by humans over the centuries, and enforced by humans. The Roman Catholic Church, in all its storied history, had held the distinction for being the sole link between mortals and God. In this arrangement, the Church was the authority, thereby interpreting God’s laws as its human leaders saw fit. After the Reformation shifted a good chunk of the population’s perspective away from the theocratic institution, the Bible became the new source of theological authority. Unlike the RCC, the Bible contained presumed-to-be-unblemished wisdom (at the very least, said wisdom was comparatively unblemished), and allowed commoners to have direct access to God; whereas RCC bishops and cardinals often took passages out of context to support their own personal values, precisely the “cafeteria religion” that many people decry.

However, the Scriptures are just that: scriptures. Without some level of interpretation, the written word is stale, stuck only in the time period in which it was set. It is necessary to look beyond the text that appears, to find a proper transposition of the original meaning of a particular law or value. Morever, for the purpose of having a strong faith in God, one must actually look to him (i.e. outside of the Bible as well as in) to find the Truth. Consider the passage from John 5:39-40: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The thing about the very existence of cafeteria religion is that there are a lot of written holy words in the Bible. A stack of rules, a list of values, a plethora of advice. Jacobs is right: there is only so much we can heap on our plate. He explains, using an actual cafeteria metaphor: “I’ve had some great meals at cafeterias. I've also had some turkey tetrazzini that gave me the dry heaves for sixteen hours. The key is choosing the right dishes” (Jacobs, p. 328). There are a lot of marriage-related laws, and yet there are a lot of single people in the world right now, a group certain to increase in size. Those same people, so long as they remain single, will supposedly never have to worry about violating the commandment on adultery. Vegetarians will never have to worry about eating sacrificial meat. The point is not that these laws are useless and should be ignored. By no means! Rather, those individuals can choose other guidelines (“laws” is so black-and-white) that would fit them better to focus on.

Now, I understand the opponent’s fear. Cafeteria religion can enable people to conform the Bible to their own potentially sinful values. I can hear various people’s justifications towards this end: “Divorce is OK if it’s mutual or amicable.” “I don’t have to give my money to the poor, because the government will tax me anyway.” “It’s OK to watch/play football on Sunday.” “It’s OK to commit adultery if my significant other is fine with it.” “It’s only a bee! If I hadn’t squashed it, it would have stung me.” “It’s only a fetus! If I don’t want the kid I don’t have to have it.” “Jesus wants me to live the American dream and to have a good life! After all, he advocates the capitalistic system. Just look up his parable about the five bags of gold!” “God doesn’t really care about homosexuality.” “Nothing I do matters. So I’ll raise hell while I’m young and convert to Christianity on my deathbed.”

The problem with this attitude is that the individual doesn’t really spend time actually thinking about the bit of Scriptural wisdom that he/she may come across. This is a part of human nature: we find something we like and live by it. So for those who fall in love with “the American dream” will be drawn toward any statement that’s remotely pro-capitalism. Supporters of gay marriage will naturally steer away from any anti-homosexual reference, and toward anything that says God is love. And so on and so forth.

Many people are also afraid to deal with challenge, or differing interpretations of a particular phrase or concept. Many of these same people also grew up with the idea of putting their trust into a doctrine or series of doctrines for their faith. Those who were taught that either their church (or synagogue, or mosque, etc) or a collection of books (that’s what the Bible is, anyway) where the only sources of truth will have issues with new ideas. They will not be curious; rather, they will either run away from them, or attack them, and neither option allows them to grow in their faith.

I know where I am. I am often afraid of challenge and confrontation myself. But I also know that, to grow in faith, I must combat these fears. And it hasn’t been easy. A couple summers ago while I was staying up in Minneapolis looking for work, I listened in on a religious discussion between two friends on opposite sides of the issue of cafeteria religion. At the time I didn’t feel comfortable contributing (partially because I was somewhat biased), but my Biblically-religious friend raised this issue of picking and choosing. That question stuck with me for some time. I didn’t have an answer. I’d like to think, after having spent some time picking apart this topic, that I do have one now. But for me to truly justify following my own cafeteria religion, I still have to do it right. I have to actively practice what I preach, pick my spots when doling out criticism, and above all look to God for guidance. After all, since this is a faith, it’s all about God. Far too many religious people forget that.

Brief commentary on a dream and teenage psychology

Sometime around when I was ten years old, I dreamed I was a teenager. I don't remember much (it was about fifteen years ago when this dream happened), but I remember being really frustrated at everything in life. When I'd woken up, I recall being quite surprised by it, having recalled conversations with friends at some point earlier in life about what it would be like being a teenager (or, more accurately, how "cool" it would be to be one).

Predictably, that dream turned out to be prophetic. But of course, I was far from the only one who went through the massive ups and downs during this stage. Last year, while with AmeriCorps, I listened to a brain development expert in this area speak about the teenage years, and learned that the still-developing frontal cortex is the primary culprit. I came across this online article [“http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr07/teenage.html”] about teenage psychology that could sum up all the points better than I could in a blog entry. But I will say this: the frontal cortex is directly related to judgments that teens have to make, especially while driving. The hormone-related aggression is there, but the faculties as to how to deal with it are not.

If I ever have kids, I'm probably going to make them wait until at least 17 before getting their driver's license, like my parents did for me. Maybe I could even convince them that driving is useless, or even bad for the environment, like several of my Chicago friends embraced during their late teens and early twenties (at last check, I think they all have their driver's licenses now). Even more so, I might employ a strategy of finding all my kid's "new" friend's parents, connecting with them, and swapping information with them about our kids and their possible doings, at least as a means for having a plan to safeguard them as much as we can. But I will admit, that plan is quite ambitious, so we'll have to see if it ever happens. Of course, that's if I ever have kids.