I think one of my least favorite new date conversation topics is talking about religion. I like being a Christian, but I don't like playing a card game over one's faith choices. Most of the time, my faith and your faith will be different.

And on the one hand, this can be hard. Some faith expressions are not compatible with each other. If my religion and your religion both say the other is going to hell, it's going to be hard to raise children in such a fraught environment. Right?

But on the other hand...sometimes it feels like one gets overly concerned over matters of degree. Even if we believe the same thing, it is likely that one of us will be a "better" Christian than the other. More regular churchgoer, or more sacrificial, or spent 4 years helping needy children, you name it. So does that mean that a mismatch means incompatibility? It's true that it will create tension at first. But also, isn't it just common-sense that rarely will two people exactly match in faith? "Ok, babe, we can't get married until you up your Bible reading to 2 chapters a day, and also I'm going to need to see more tithing for 6 months." Heh, what do we really want out of the other person, you know?

It's not easy, but also I kind of wonder if a lot of the spiritual compatibility debates have been overdone. Maybe it's not as complicated as we've made it.

Suppose that you have done or said something inappropriate. Or no, you didn't do it, but someone is gossiping that you did, or exaggerating your action to make you look evil. What should you do?

I'm a big fan of debate, of explanation. And certainly, I would say, you should defend yourself! Let people know you've been wronged, or perhaps let them know that, say, the guy you punched deserved it, heh. Tell them the backstory, the sidestory, the whatever story.

But...I'm not so sure anymore. If you and I know each other, and someone tells you something bad about me, the power is in your hands. You can believe the other person, choose not to get involved, or ask me for clarification. And so, if I need to fight for myself to explain...haven't I already lost? Isn't it already over if the trust of those who know me isn't enough to protect me and my reputation?

Hmm. I think I'm just a bit weary of the constant social media struggle of justification, rationalization, and brain-washing, heh. I think people know me by now. I've wasted a bit too much time in the past protesting too much, methinks.

Suppose I were to describe you a system:

1) The people at the top of this system get most of the benefits. Many earned their way there, but some were merely genetically fortunate.

2) The people in the middle get decent benefits. However, at times they are at the mercy of the people at the top. They live in perpetual insecurity of dropping to the bottom.

3) The people at the bottom get few benefits. The only reason they do not rebel more often is manipulation from the top and middle, or the depressing feeling that they will lose what little they have if they complain.

I’ve described a pseudo-meritocracy that sounds a lot like capitalism...and the hook-up culture. If you’re for socialism, are you then for...monogamy? If you’re anti-capitalist, should you also decry sexual excess in the name of consistency? Heh, just have been thinking about it lately.

There's been a recent controversy about what some Christians said or thought or did. It doesn't matter what it is; the story will change every week. Regardless, here I am, as a Christian, and I have feelings that are hard to easily classify...

See, on the one hand, no one wants to go back to Kayfabe. It's a term that I first heard when applied to wrestling. You have to pretend that all the holds and tosses are real, that the entire show is real at all times. I don't want to be the type of Christian who pretends that all other Christians are right all the time. We know it's not true. We know Christians can be wicked, scheming, hypocritical monsters. So yes, I understand a certain reluctance to defend Christian oddballs.

But I am frustrated by the other response. Christians condemning Christians to score points with their friends is no better. One day it will be your belief that is controversial. We as Christians are Christians because we believe in following the voice of God where it may lead us. Just because I am not the man on the soapbox, calling out in the town square today, doesn't mean I may not be that man tomorrow. It is prideful of me to judge my brother, to claim he must also not give to the needy, or he is a busybody. How can I do this?

I think unfortunately, only silence can sometimes be the right response.

Masculinity can be toxic when it starts preaching that every half-open door must be walked through, or, worse, shoved open, in order to prove some point about testosterone or fortitude. I think it’s pretty obvious by now that much of my writing is quiet, indirect trolling of certain masculine assumptions. I do it for my amusement, but also out of a sort of revenge...revenge for younger me and the mistakes I made because I believed masculinity’s expectations and assumptions.

I’ve always justified my social networking usage by claiming that I provided different content than most, or differentiated myself. Maybe, finally, I’m accepting that my content is no longer that different, and I’ve run out of things to say? I'm not sure. Things are different in Pennsylvania. I'm more at peace, but less creative. It's an interesting trade-off!

Thinking of Jamie's passing today. It's only been two years; it's odd, it feels like longer. I still remember getting the news when I was at work, in my office. I had a meeting I had to go to in 10 minutes. I tried to pull myself together for the meeting with my colleague. I walked in and told him I couldn't do the meeting, then went back to my office to mourn some more.

I think one of the odd things about Internet friends is that we have incentives to pretend we don't care as much as we do. After all, often we never met them in person. Or, they live far away, or are different from our usual type of friends. So it's easy to start saying things like "Oh, it's the Internet" or "Internet friends come and go." And there's some truth to that.

But I have to admit, because Xanga allowed one to read a lot of other people's deepest thoughts, bonding happened much deeper than one expected. No, I only talked to Jamie about once or twice a month outside of Xanga. But it often was on deep topics, or raw moments. I randomly looked up old messages with her. There's one where she says she's trying to get some help with something, but "only my Internet friends are responding." And that's how it is sometimes; our Internet friends may not be real life, but they're the ones who responded when no one else did. And so we miss each other and mourn more than is expected, because of those bonds that were created when no one else would listen.

Lately I've been struck by how often Jesus emphasized good works in his teachings. Not only did he often mention them, but he had certain standards for how they were to be carried out. And those standards are not at all easy.

For a Christian, we usually get more concerned about things like not sinning, or persecution, or whether God/Jesus are real and faith. I don't think too many of us worry about our good works not pleasing God. And yet, consider the following obligations:

1) Good works are to be secret. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told the people to give freely, but also not to take credit for the good they did. God is the one who will see and reward.

2) Good works are to be aimed at the least of these. There's a well-quoted parable where the sheep are told "Whatever you did for the least of these, you did unto me." The list of good works are hard good works. Going to see the sick? Going to prison? Um, Jesus, I wouldn't last 2 minutes in prison, how can I go there? But he specifically said he wanted those done.

3) Good works are to be unrepaid. There's a certain type of cheeseball movie trope where the guy helps some woman in distress and voila it's the Queen of Bumbleville, the hottest, richest woman in the land! But that's not how it's supposed to work in God's plan. Jesus specifically said go help people who can't repay you. Less helping the rich, beautiful, and talented, more helping the poor, ugly, and stupid? Jesus, do I have to? And yet, that's the calling.

I'm writing this because I want to do a better job doing actual good works. It's too easy to throw 10% of my money in Jesus' direction and call myself a saint. But that's not enough to be fully worthy of the name Christian. Just still thinking it over.

It's been interesting to watch the Republicans lose more and more influence among younger voters. What has happened? I did my best to remember what seems to have changed. Here's my best effort to sort it out:

1) The Republicans used to be trusted to be tough when it was important. That meant tough policing policies, and aggressive military action as needed. The disastrous Middle Eastern campaigns of the 00's did permanent damage to the Republican claim that they could better defend America than Democrats. Couple that with various policing controversies and an overall drop in inner city crime, and the domestic policing also suffered.

2) The Republicans increasingly seemed to prioritize money and the rich over all other parts of their party. Rather than supposedly being the careful spenders, under Bush government spending soared, or was redirected to private organizations (Defense especially did this). Also, religious Americans lost more and more trust in the party, or realized the risks of being affiliated with Republicans only.

3) The Democrats used to have a way of talking down to underprivileged people of all races that the Republicans could exploit. Bluntly put, the Democrat candidates often had white or rich privilege problems when they tried to connect with their supposed base. In the last decade, Democrats have gotten better at this, or at least haven't been called out on it as well as they used to be.

Thoughts?