Never argue politics or religion

see comments from last post if you're wondering where all this came from...

One common meaning of the term "liberal" is playing loose with the meaning of something as in addressing one's drunken fraternity brothers as follows: "Gentlemen... and I use the most liberal definition of that term"

With that in mind, it is liberal, to me, to vest too much into one sentence or phrase that anyone utters. Speech is, by its nature, much more loosely used than the written word, so it should be especially suspect. But even the written word shouldn't be given that much credence. Take, for instance, newspaper articles. We all know that the "liberal" media only chooses for publication the worst quotes the president ever utters, thereby maintaining their agenda of making him appear stupid. But actions always speak louder than words both written and spoken. For instance, the president's actions during the Vietnam conflict speak much louder than his words about understanding the sacrifice our troops are making at his command. His actions in reforming health care and social security speak louder than his words on those issues. His actions like declaring war speak louder than his words about being pro-life. But I digress.

It is likewise "liberal" to me to vest too much stock in words interpreted over thousands of years, at the request of powerful sinners with their own, especially non-Christian, agendas. The history and distribution of Christianity is steeped with corruption at every turn. (Note I'm not questioning Christianity itself, just many of the purveyors of it) Those who sought only their administration's dominance were often the ones commissioning updated versions of the Bible. Because those who opposed such re-writes were often wiped out entirely, there's little hope of ever retrieving anything remotely objective about the modern English versions we have today. Sorry, no signing statements available. However, this fact doesn't even remotely mean that Christianity can't be followed. The modern Bible, flawed by man's greed as it may be, still gives us great general ideas to work with and Christ, himself, gave us the specifics that matter. While we could argue and divide ourselves for years over every passage in the Bible... take for instance the idea that the word "homosexual" never appeared in it, we'd all be better off if we focused on what does matter and what is clear and subject to far less debate. (oops, I've used another word very liberally... no one debates anymore! We polarize, ignore and condemn. Very UNChristian)

Christ's words were made obvious/clarified beyond question through His actions. These actions, not anyone's words, converted Roman soldiers on the spot. The actions of subsequent Christians also doomed by Romans, converted the Romans who were to kill those Christians. They didn't haggle over what some passage meant. The Christian said a prayer and calmly accepted his fate and, that show of faith converted the would-be executioner. Back to Jesus though. Jesus didn't criticize or condemn; He forgave. He was His brother's keeper. He helped both those who could and couldn't help themselves. He welcomed sinner and saint alike. By this I don't mean there is no sin. Having knowledge of this and blatantly ignoring it is sin. Treating anyone in any way other than you'd expect to be treated is sin. Failing to recognize that every woman is someone's mom, sister, or daughter and then treating her in any other way than you would treat your mom, sister, or daughter is sin. Worshipping anyone or anything that isn't God is sin. We know this. It's that easy. Jesus both told us and exemplified these things for us. When we look at the big picture of the Book, and the little picture of Jesus's life, it's pretty clear. This is NOT a liberal interpretation. It is my humble opinion that any other interpretation would be.

For instance, claiming to be the candidate or party of God... not just sin, but blasphemy. Testing the will of radical followers by mocking their symbols of God (also blasphemy) would be sinful. Jesus wouldn't do that. Assuming your interpretation of a Biblical passage that's already been translated by hundreds of people over thousands of years entitles you to some higher degree of Earthly power than someone who interprets it another way and acting on that belief in a way other than how Jesus would act on it is a sin. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to your actions... maybe even your opinions of others to the extent that those opinions guide your actions, use that Jesus test. It's simple.

Much is made today of the complexity of modern life, but it's not that complex. You don't think Jesus dealt with complexity? He dealt with more real complexity than most of us will ever experience. He did it with grace by ignoring those intricacies, avoiding the cymini sectores that our modern politicians have tried to turn us into. Christians didn't trust politicians, didn't even get involved (as Christians) in politics for a reason. If we truly believed what we claim to, we would continue in that tradition. Politics is a necessary evil. Men need it in order to somewhat peacefully live together in an ever-shrinking world. But we don't need to further dirty the name of Christianity by pretending the two will ever work together.

Sure, all empires fall eventually, but ours was doing pretty well until we mixed this cocktail. Let's unmix it before the trend is unstoppable.