The Joy of Sons

My sister-in-law pointed me to this Web page called "The Joy of Sons". Check it out if you get the chance. It will give you a quick laugh. Haven't encountered a lot of this stuff with JD and AJ yet but it's a good reminder that it's all coming soon so I should begin to brace myself.

Convictions

One of my favorite quotes is "the true measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy" (Martin Luther King). In a prior post, I said that when I'm gone, I'd like people to remember me as someone who lived his beliefs, could be counted on when it counted, and left things better than he found them. Thus, my current attempt to reorient my career around fighting global warming. But living with conviction has subtler, more day-to-day consequences. One is doing what you say you're going to do - whether big or small. Awhile ago (see this post), I said I was going to get down to 190 pounds by Christmas. My wife asked me yesterday whether I'm still planning to do that. Honestly, I was planning to ignore I ever set that goal. But that's not the example I want to set for my kids or the precedent I want to set for myself. So, despite an overwhelming desire not to, I'm going to try my best to meet my goal by Christmas. Losing 15-16 pounds in 3 months is still achievable without doing something drastic or unhealthy - although Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and business breakfasts/lunches/dinners (for my job search) will certainly increase the degree of difficulty.

Divine council

In this week's lecture for my Old Testament class, it says:

You will also read about how the Israelite God is part of a divine council of beings. He is the leader of this council and has higher standards of ethics, including concern for the poor and justice for the weak. This is another area that has been enriched with Near Eastern studies, for in them we learn that the idea of a divine council of the gods was prevalent throughout the world of the Bible. For one reference to the divine council in the Bible see Psalm 82:1-4. It is interesting to see that even Satan seems to be a part of the divine council before he becomes a much more sinister and evil being in the New Testament. Please see Job 1 and 2 where God and Satan discuss Job’s righteousness and essentially make a wager to see if Job will hold up or not if he loses everything of value to himself.

While I’m not affiliated with a particular religion, I would describe myself as monotheist so the introduction of a divine council took me a little by surprise. In particular, two excerpts from the textbook intrigued me. First, “empowered by his great wisdom and ethical superiority, YHWH is eventually seen as reigning supreme over other council members, known collectively as the ‘sons of the gods’. Ultimately reduced to a dependent status as YHWH’s vassals and servants, the ‘sons of the gods’ become YHWH’s divine courtiers, running errands and conveying orders to human recipients” (page 65). So, there were many gods but YHWH (who was initially their equal) eventually became their supreme ruler – either the mightiest of all the gods or a one and only God (Israel’s God). Second, “in Gilgamesh, the gods hold council after the flood to lament their destructive excesses … In the Atrahasis epic, they similarly confer after the great deluge, exploring less extreme options … for limiting human population growth” (page 64). So, even if YHWH was ultimately all powerful, at least at the time of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis, YHWH did not reign supreme. Therefore, there was some period of time during which humans existed on the earth where YHWH was not the one and only God. If that is true, how is it that YHWH (and YHWH alone) created the universe, human beings, animals, etc. in Gensis? It doesn’t seem compatible with the concept of a divine council.

The only ways to reconcile thing is to assume that (a) multiple gods have existed at one time or another but YHWH has always been supreme over them and it simply took time for human understanding of that fact to catch up and take shape, (b) multiple gods have never existed but what human beings interpreted as multiple gods or a divine council were simply manifestations or projections of different roles and characteristics of a single God, or (c) a divine council exists but the other members are not gods (and never were) but are simply instruments of a single God. I personally believe (b) but I could also see how (a) or (c) could be true.

Destruction

On to chapter 3 in The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and one of the questions for reflection and discussion is:

Ancient Israel's geographic location between the mighty empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia virtually ensured its repeated domination by superior military forces. Rather than view their history as the result of a vulnerable position and the realities of international aggression, however, most biblical writers interpreted Israel's rise and fall as a consequence of its failure to worship YHWH alone. How do you interpret Judah's destruction by Babylon (587 B.C.E) and again by Rome (70 C.E.)? Why did YHWH not protect his convenant people from their enemies?

I believe that YHWH allowed Judah’s destruction by Babylon and again by Rome to facilitate spiritual growth among the covenant people – and, by extension, followers of other faiths who built upon Judaism. The period of the Babylonian exile was “the most productive era in terms of biblical composition. Scholars believe that much of the Hebrew Bible … was thoroughly revised and reedited during the late sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries B.C.E … Without king, country, or sanctuary, the Jewish exiles in Babylon pondered the national disaster that had robbed them of all the divine promises made to Abraham and David. In the final edition, the Torah thus does not end as one would expect, with Israel’s possession of Canaan. Instead, it concludes with Moses’ ultimate disappointment – seeing the Promised Land from afar and then dying before he can enter it. The divine promises remain in effect, but their fulfillment lies in the indefinite future … At that low point in their history, it may have seemed as if God had entirely abandoned his people. During the exile and its aftermath, Judean writers produced varied works that dramatized their nation’s misfortunes, including the Book of Job, in which a righteous man reexamines traditional concepts of God’s character and divine justice. As Job, after almost unbearable suffering, is finally returned to divine favor, so Israel could hope for restoration” (page 54).

Moments of crisis truly test people’s beliefs and cause them to reevaluate their worldview. Viewed with a long-term perspective, Judah’s destruction by Babylon and again by Rome was a very positive development since it caused scholars to fundamentally reevaluate and refine their belief system and to search for deeper meaning. Many centuries later, we all still benefit from the results of their suffering and searching – in the form of the Hebrew Bible. Also, by leaving people wanting, YHWH provided ongoing motivation to people – even the most righteous among us – to uphold their end of the covenant in hopes of being returned to divine favor.

In his bestselling book Good to Great, Jim Collins opens by observing that “good is the enemy of great”. Had YHWH simply handed Israel possession of Canaan and vanquished its enemies, the people probably would have led good lives but not pushed themselves to be truly great spiritually. It’s just human nature to do that. Why endure pain (even in the form of intellectual or spiritual questioning) if there is nothing to be gained? If YHWH has already told you you’re the chosen people and he has bestowed blessing upon you, why push to become something more than that? Why push to deepen your understanding of the covenant or become better people? You couldn’t have things better than they already were. Instead, YHWH pushes his people to go to the next level and continually seek to improve themselves and their understanding of Him over time. In a word, to strive for greatness as YHWH is great.

Little Hoopsters

We signed JD up for a basketball program at the YMCA called Little Hoopsters. The program is geared towards boys and girls ages 3 to 5 and introduces fundamentals like passing, dribbling, and shooting. Today was our second class. JD is doing well, particularly with shooting. We got him a kids basketball last weekend so he can practice at home. What I find the most interesting about the program is that parent participation is required and all the parents are dads. With most kid activities, the moms tend to dominate - whether by choice or necessity. But not at Little Hoopsters - and I suspect most youth sports. I suppose that's because sports are a more natural way for dads to bond with their kids. Or perhaps the dads have dreams of their kids becoming football stars or basketball stars or soccer stars or any old star. And this is their way of helping that process along. Whatever the reason, in most (but certainly not all) cases, sports and dads go hand-in-hand. There's a part of me that wants JD to be a sports star - probably because I wasn't - but I'm trying to follow his lead rather than pushing him towards something he's not personally interested in. Will be interesting to see how the whole sports thing plays out for him and AJ over time.

YHWH

At the end of the first chapter of The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, one of the questions for reflection and discussion is:

From this brief introductory survey of some diverse portrayals of God in the Hebrew Bible (though to derive from different traditions and from different historical periods), what attributes of YHWH do you think have most influenced your own ideas about God? Explain the concepts of divine immanence and transcendence, and give a biblical example of each quality. How can God be both a pure Spirit unencumbered by the physical universe and also a covenant-making Deity who closely communicate with earth-bound individuals?

Certainly, many attributes of YHWH have influenced by ideas about God. I believe in divine immanence (presence in human life). As the text describes on page 14, “as an immanent Being, God intimately communicates with humans, operating within the realm of material reality and remaining accessible to the human mind and consciousness. In Genesis and Exodus, divine immanence takes several forms, ranging from direct appearances to inspired dreams and visitations from angels (supernatural messengers).” I personally envision this interaction between God and human being as being similar to a game of computer chess – see this post for greater detail.

I also believe in God’s transcendence, his absolute independence of both the human and natural worlds. As described on page 15, “unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, who were typically identified with natural phenomena such as storm and rain or with psychological states such as love and desire, YHWH is usually portrayed as infinitely surpassing the limits of physical nature, undefinable by any aspect of the material universe. Although different biblical concepts of God emphasize different divine attributes, one of the Tanak’s controlling principles is that no image can be made of Israel’s God – he cannot be represented (and thus limited) by any concrete form (Exod. 20:3-6, cf. Deut. 5:8-10). Insisting on God’s transcendence, the author of 1 Kings depicts Solomon as contrasting the inadequacy of the Temple he built to house YHWH’s ‘name’ with the Deity’s infinite majesty: ‘Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain [God], much less this house that I have built” (1 Kings 8:27-30). This belief is actually quite similar to Hindu belief that Brahman (the unique Godhead of Hinduism who has no other and no second) cannot be comprehended or objectified (with attributes) without diminishing or limiting his greatness in some way – see this post for greater detail. In the realm of science, Sir John Houghton believes that God exists in a fifth dimension beyond space and time. Therefore, God could be anywhere and everywhere in space and time simultaneously. See this post for more detail.

In terms of the last part of the question, I would flip the question on its head and ask why an all-powerful God can't both transcend the physical universe but also take a personal interest in each being in that physical universe. The question becomes one more of motivation than ability. If God is all powerful, why would He take an interest in me personally? The simple answer in my mind is because He can. With great power comes great responsibility. An absolute ruler on Earth abuses his power (and the interests of individuals under him) because he can. God does the opposite because he can and serves as a personal example for the rest of us to emulate and aspire to.

Lost in translation

At the end of each chapter in The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, there is a set of questions for reflection and discussion. One of the questions at the end of the second chapter is:

Why is the gap between the earliest extant copies of the Hebrew Bible and their time of composition significant? How can we be sure that surviving manuscripts accurately represent the work of their authors? What commonly happens to a document during the long process of copying, editing, and transmitting the text?

The gap between the earliest extant copies of the Hebrew Bible and their time of composition is troubling for many reasons. As the text states on pages 19-20, “our knowledge of the Tanak’s formation and transmission is severely limited by the fact that not a single scrap of any biblical writer’s original composition has survived. Many centuries separate the time in which the older parts of the Hebrew were written from that in which the earliest extant copies were made. The great chronological gap between a given book’s date of composition and the oldest version we have of it is significant because it is during a document’s earliest stages of copying and transmission, before it acquires the status of recognized scripture, that the text is most fluid, subject to editorial additions, deletions, and other changes … In the earliest stages of transmission, many ancient scribes apparently also acted as editors, adding explanatory phrases, or otherwise modifying the text to reflect the covenant community’s ever-changing circumstances. Many editorial changes were minor, mere errors in copying, but others produced notable differences in content … Because neither the author’s original text nor copies made soon after a book first appeared survive, it is impossible to determine the full extent to which later copies differ from the writer’s original version.”

One area of conflict between Muslims and Christians, for example, is the Muslim belief that the Bible is not the word of God as there are likely a number of items that were compromised by human involvement. Where the Bible and Koran differ, the Koran should serve as the definitive source (according to Muslims) since it is a “direct transmission” from God (through Muhammad). This is, of course, what we all care about – the “direct transmission” from God – not a modified or editorialized version based on human biases or limitations. We’ll likely never know the full truth, however (at least not while we are on this Earth). Even with new editions of the Bible (like the NRSV) going back to many of the earliest sources, we’re still not working off the truly “original sources”. Also, as the text points out, “language changes over time and words lose their original meanings and take on new connotations” (page 28). Therefore, we can’t be totally certain how the original text should be interpreted in a modern context. Also, some words or phrases do not translate perfectly from one language to another. In the preface to the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, the author’s grandson bemoans the enormous difficulty translators face in trying to express the exact meaning of a text in a different language (page 24):

For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book [Ecclesiasticus], but even the Law [Torah] itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original.

Here's one personal example of meaning changing slightly (but meaningfully) in transmission from one version to another. We just had a board of directors meeting at work and prepared a modified version of our company P&L that showed the relative profitability of each line of business. When we asked the CFO what the BOD thought of the analysis, he stated that they were "very interested" in it. When someone else asked one of my co-workers the same question, he said that the BOD "liked" it. The restated version (while mostly correct) is materially different from the original version - but it's very easy for these changes to creep into the historical record and cause people to form very different judgments than they might have otherwise form given a full understanding of the true reality.

Hebrew Scriptures class @ LTCC

I'm starting another online religion class. This time, the subject is the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) and it's being taught at Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC). The instructor is the same one as last time (John Provost) and it's the primary reason I signed up for the class even though I have a lot of other things going on right now. The course description is:

This course explores the origin, history and significant ideas of the Western world’s foundational text. Hebrew Scriptures presents an academic introduction to the ancient stories of the TANAK (The Old Testament) from the creation stories in the book of Genesis all the way until we encounter the ancient prophets of Israel. In between we will explore a world of literature including history, poetry, mythology, and some of the world’s most moving prose. In the process we will learn about the latest evidence on how the scriptures came together and what we can know about that process. While doing all of this we will be able to explore the values and meaning the Bible promotes and look at our own worldview in the process.

And the course objectives are:

• Comprehend the basic historical, cultural, moral, political and theological issues raised by the Hebrew Scriptures,
• Understand the thought and culture of other peoples and the role of Judaism in human history,
• Discuss the three major sections (Torah, Writings, Prophets) of the Hebrew Scriptures and see how they are different and related at the same time,
• Understand the human need for religious expression,
• Analyze major themes of scriptural interpretation and translation including source and form criticism,
• Understand the problems and mysteries that the Hebrew Scriptures attempt to solve,
• Demonstrate critical thinking and communication skills in the context of religious and philosophical ideas.

The text for the class is The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by Stephen L. Harris and Robert L. Platzner. Should be interesting. I've been meaning to read the Bible but never really got going on it.

Ten best things about global warming

Global warming certainly isn't a laughing matter but it's important to keep a sense of humor about things. I came across this top 10 list this morning and found it amusing.

10. Why pay for tattoos when melanoma's free?
9. No more pesky weeds. In fact, no more pesky plants.
8. Nile Encephalitis: not just for Egyptians anymore.
7. Furnaces convert easily into tornado shelters.
6. Helsinki: the new Riviera.
5. Middle East oil producers feel right at home— everywhere.
4. Golfers only need a putter and a sand wedge.
3. For those who can't get enough of global warming. One word: Venus.
2. Steaks, medium rare, on the hoof.
1. Three thongs and you're dressed!

CAR Aquathon

This morning, the whole family swam in the CAR Aquathon. It was our third time participating in this fund-raising event. Each team does as many lengths of the pool as it can in a 30-minute period. We were part of the first heat and did 46 lengths. The winning team did 130 lengths (roughly 3 times as many as we did). The last two years, our performance really bugged me (we did 24 lengths my first year and 33 lengths last year ... at least we're improving). The other teams would come over to the scoreboard and wonder aloud how they did 100+ lenghts and we did only a quarter to a third of their total. I'd want to justify our performance ... we have little kids who can't swim, we have a paralyzed guy, we have some old ladies. This year, I was feeling the same way. But, then it got worse. I started taking comfort in the fact that we beat (by 8 lengths) the team of retarded kids who also had a member with a prosthetic leg. What's wrong with me? Am I really that competitive? I didn't think I was. Perhaps I was just feeding off the competitiveness of some of the other teams. Perhaps I have some deep character flaw. Perhaps I need to rent The Ringer. Who knows. At least we raised some money for a good cause.

The Cutting Edge Of Ambition

I was reading an article in Men's Health magazine the other day called "The Cutting Edge Of Ambition" (see online version). The article is about what modern brain science can tell us about questions such as "what level of personal drive is most likely to produce true success? what level will kill you? or ruin the rest of your life?". I was only lukewarm on the article as a whole. But there was one call-out box that I found very useful (not in the online version). It was called "beat your coworkers to the punch (before they even arrive)" and said:

Start your workday bathed in the sickly glow of a gossip blog and you'll sabotage your productivity all day, says Julie Morgenstern, author of Never Check Your E-mail in the Morning. "When you accomplish a high-level task first thing in the morning, that sense of productivity feeds into the rest of your day," she says. These three quick fixed will optimize your first 60 minutes at your desk.

LAY THE GROUDWORK
Your workday really began in the last hour of the day before, when you contemplated the disaster zone known as your desk. "Never leave your office without knowing exactly what you're going to do with the first hour of the next day," says Morgenstern.

HIT A LEADOFF HOME RUN
"Use your brain's prime time for prime-time work," says Ronni Eisenberg, author of The Overwhelmed Person's Guide to Time Management. So target one major project in your first hour on the job: Knocking it off early amplifies your efficiency once you start multitasking again. The brain is better at multitasking later in the day, after you've had a chance to wake up.

TUNE OUT OUTLOOK
"E-mail has created an instant response culture," says Morgenstern. "It turns you into a reactive slave to Outlook." So turn off that "alert" noise, steal a "Do Not Disturb" hotel tag and post it prominently, and punch the "hold all calls" button on the phone. Now you're cooking.

I could definitely put the first hour of my workday to better use. Recently, I've been getting into work by 9am or 9:30am. By then, a lot of people are well into their day and it's hard to get stuff done since I immediately get pulled into things before I can even get settled. Wish I could get onto an earlier schedule. A co-worker of mine gets into the office every morning at 7:00am or so and is the only one there for about an hour to an hour and a half. That's the way to go. But that would also mean I'd need to get to bed earlier and also be out of the house before the kids are up. Hard call - especially since sometimes I'm the most productive from 10pm to 2am.

How do I love thee?

I was going through a stack of papers tonight and I came across an old note from my wife. It was a pink sheet of paper and "How Do I Love Thee? Let me count the ways..." is printed across the top. Then she filled in the following:

• You are a great dad


• You spend lots of time with JD and AJ


• You have a very kind heart


• You work hard on improving yourself


• You are very handsome


• You have a great voice


• You take care of all of us


• You work hard to support us


• You help take care of the house


• You are honest


• You are kind to animals


• You are faithful


• You are incredibly smart


• Yet, you are humble


• You are generous with time and money


• You read with your kids


• You don't laugh at my silly fears


• You have terrific hair and lips


• You are gentle

I'm so lucky to have such a supportive spouse. My wife rocks (see also this post). I wouldn't be the person I am today without my wife and I couldn't have accomplished many of the things I've accomplished without her either. Her support means more than I can explain.

Progress

A friend of mine AC sent me an email today about my blog. Specifically, he said:

I just got through two days straight of reading through it. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to view it as a whole collection, but you get the sense of immense personal growth in the period you’ve been writing this. Your belief in God seems to have gone from tentative to certain (and now you’re dealing with issues of religious theology pre-assuming God). It’s amazing. Keep it up!

A couple of quick reactions. Wow, two straight days of reading! Amazing my blog could hold his attention for that long - or maybe he just powered through it since he's my friend. Regardless, I'm very impressed and feel very loved. =) Thanks AC, hopefully you got something out of the blog personally.

In terms of the whole collection, no, I haven't had a chance to go back and read through prior entries. I'm sure it would be fascinating to do that sometime. Interesting that AC saw so much growth / progress in such a short period of time (roughly six months). When you're going through a change personally (whether it's losing weight or deciding what to do about religion), you often lack sufficient distance (or objectivity) to really gauge how much progress (if any) you're really making. So it's great to get an outside perspective and some positive feedback.

Revenge of Gaia

I received a Washington Post article in the mail today from my mom (thanks!). It was called "The End of Eden" (see online version) and it was about James Lovelock's new book The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity. The basic gist of the book and article is that we're all screwed. It reminded me of Al Gore's comment that "in the long run the earth is going to be fine. It's humans who are at risk" (see this post). Lovelock argues that the most of the world will become uninhabitable before we can do anything about it - "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." Lovelock dismisses solar cells, recycling, wind turbines, etc saying "it won't matter a damn ... [people] make the mistake of thinking we have decades. We don't."

A very gloomy outlook indeed. Here's how I see things. I think Lovelock is generally right about what's going on with the planet but I hope to God he's wrong about whether we can still do something about it and how soon the ill-effects of global warming will play out. Regardless, I'm inheriting this problem from prior generation and my children will inherit it from me. I can't do anything about that. The choice in front of me is what I do in the face of this information. On some level, it's a binary decision. I can either do something about the problem or not. Having chosen to do something about the problem, there's a spectrum of options from there - from totally realigning my whole life/career around helping solve the problem to simply recycling more and riding my bike to work. As we speak, I'm attempting the realignment option - updated my resume and trying to find a position at a solar cell company in the Bay Area. Either I'm going to make a difference or go down fighting. At least I'll be able to look my kids in the face 10 to 20 to 30 years from now and honestly say I tried my best to make the world a better place for them.

Faith & Reason

In one of my mother-in-law's family letters, she mentioned a Bill Moyers series on PBS called Faith and Reason. Specifically, she talked about an interview she'd seen with Sir John Houghton. I just watched it and found it quite interesting. A good use of 26 minutes. Two things stuck with me. First, Houghton said that, as a scientist, he thinks it's important to be able to say "I don't know". As a believer, it's also important to be able to say "I don't know". Lack of specific knowledge does not invalidate a particular scientific or spiritual belief. Second, Houghton had an interesting idea that God may exist in a fifth dimension beyond space and time. In that sense, God could be anywhere and everywhere in space and time simultaneously. An interesting concept and one that isn't incongruent with my current world view.

To the extent you're interested, there were 11 other people interviewed in Bill Moyers' series (see portraits).

The power of advertising

I just read this post from the Cleantech blog and it reminded me why I'm so fired up at the moment about global warming. Some people may disagree regarding how severe this problem is and what needs to be done about it, but I believe it's more likely than not that this is a big problem (and not going away) and I'm personally not willing to take significant risks with the world that my kids will inherit. The sentiment is captured well in a recent TV ad by Environmental Defense. In it, the narrator stands on a railroad track with a train approaching behind him, talking about climate change coming 20-30 years from now and saying the problem is beyond his lifetime. He steps off the track just before the train is to hit him, but standing behind the narrator is a little girl, who is implied to be inevitably steamrolled by the locomotive (see ad here). The guys at Cleantech compared the Environmental Defense ad to the legendary (if not infamous) "daisy" ad that LBJ used against Goldwater in the 1964 election (see Wikipedia or PBS). I can only hope that global warming ads like this one have a similar impact on the collective consciousness as the daisy ad had on the 1964 election.

Invisible soccer ball

I was reading parts of the book The God Particle a little while ago. Leon M. Lederman (a Nobel prize winner) wrote the book as an argument for the construction of particle accelerators that could find a Higgs boson - a hypothetical particle that might hold a key to the subatomic world of quarks and leptons. There was one excerpt regarding an "invisible soccer ball" that particularly struck me. It is fairly lengthy so I created a separate page for the excerpt rather than include it here - but definitely check it out if you have interest. The except concludes with the following observation:

This is an extended metaphor for many puzzles in physics, and it is especially relevant to particle physics. We can't understand the rules (the laws of natures) without knowing the objects (the ball) and, without a belief in a logical set of laws, we would never deduce the existence of all the particles.

The same could be said about religion and the existence of God. I continue to believe that science (and the scientific method) has much to teach us about our search for God - and vice versa.

Belief-O-Matic

I took a test on the beliefnet site last night. The site claims that "even if you don't know what faith you are, Belief-O-Matic™ knows. Answer 20 questions about your concept of God, the afterlife, human nature, and more, and Belief-O-Matic™ will tell you what religion (if any) you practice ... or ought to consider practicing. Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul."

Here are my results. Per the email I received, a couple of caveats ... The top score in the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches my beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that my views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa. Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in the order of how much they have in common with my professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with my thinking.

• Reform Judaism (100%)


• Sikhism (100%)


• Unitarian Universalism (99%)


• Liberal Quakers (97%)


• Neo-Pagan (89%)


• Jainism (88%)


• Mahayana Buddhism (88%)


• Bahá'í Faith (85%)


• New Age (82%)


• Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (80%)


• Theravada Buddhism (78%)


• Hinduism (77%)


• Orthodox Judaism (76%)


• New Thought (69%)


• Scientology (67%)


• Islam (66%)


• Orthodox Quaker (64%)


• Taoism (62%)


• Secular Humanism (52%)


• Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%)


• Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (37%)


• Seventh Day Adventist (36%)


• Eastern Orthodox (34%)


• Roman Catholic (34%)


• Nontheist (30%)


• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (27%)


• Jehovah's Witness (10%)

Honestly, I'm not sure what (if anything) to make of the results. I've never even heard of three-quarters of these religions. And my gut says I'm more likely to be a Mormon than a Neo-Pagan but perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. At any rate, if I do decide to affiliate myself with a particular religion in the future, I'll worry about it then. For the time-being, I'll just consider myself a Reform Jew. =)

Where we meet God

In the most recent ExploreFaith.org newsletter, they poise the question of where we meet God. Specifically, "what does it mean to lead a spiritual life?" Offering a Jewish perspective, Rabbi Micah D. Greenstein says:

Spirituality - whether you are Christian, Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu - is religion experienced intimately. You might say it's the core, the essence of religion. Spirituality is where you and God meet and what you do about it. It doesn't have to be, as Larry Kushner says, "other worldly," such as in Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus." For most people, spirituality is ordinary and every day. It's a buzzword today. Earlier generations probably called the same idea sacred or holy. One of the great Jewish philosophers of all time, Abraham Joshua Heschel, who is a great mystical theologian, suggested that spirituality is life lived in the continuous presence of the divine. I like Heschel's definition a lot.

He goes on to offer his top ten list of what it means to be a spiritual person today:

• To view the world as an ultimate mystery rather than as a mechanized machine
• To view life as meaningful rather than meaningless
• To view life as a lesson in gratitude
• Giving as a matter of obligation for what you owe, not as something that is nice to do
• To realize that mind, body, and soul are all gifts of God
• To acknowledge life's mysteries, even the questions that have no answers
• To trust in the goodness of life and all the potential this implies
• To always hope and never succumb to despair
• To strive for goodness, not things - to believe that honesty, integrity and dignity matter more than anything else
• The belief that every person carries with them the special signature of God

The question of spirituality is also approached from a Buddhist perspective, Christian perspective, and Muslim perspective - although I haven't had the chance to read them yet.

Independent of these essays, if someone asked me the question "where do you meet God", I would say it's in moments where things seem to make sense - whether that's a moment of clarity or insight at work (with a business or technical problem), a connecting of the dots (see this post), or some new piece of scientific knowledge (see this post). If solving complex problems is my purpose in life (see this post), this would seem a logical meeting place for me and God. In that sense, I guess I do live in the continuous presence of the divine.