The Bifurcation of America

The Republicans and the Democrats

Mark 3 [24]  And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

We only hear from the religious Christian right but not the religious Christian left--maybe because there are so few of us, but here I am.  Alone again.   In visiting the OWS crowd in Zuccotti Park, I've noticed that they sometimes have meditation and a Buddhist's service, but not Christian.  I don't really know why that is.  However, I think Christianity and the extreme form of Capitalism that the protesters are against are lumped together.  I've studied Buddhism and like it, and have gotten much from it, but my roots are in Christianity and I think it's a much deeper religion than Buddhism.  Also I deeply believe in God which the Buddhists don't.  I've never met a Buddhist who had any real understanding of what Christianity was all about, except for maybe Thich Nhat Hanh--however I never met him, only read him, but he understands Christ.

Although I read the Bible most every day, I don't take it literally.  The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a history book.  Also the Bible wasn't written by God.  It was written by people.  People who were influenced, not just by their spirituality, but by their backgrounds and the environment of almost 2000 years ago.  The Bible was also severely edited by people who chose what to include in the Bible and what not to include.  However, it's the best spiritual guide we've got.

I think Newt Gingrich is a walking plague on this country.  He's an ego maniac, which is a person who can't be touched by criticism.  A person who thinks he's smarter than his audience.  His little speech about the Occupy Wall Street protesters was terrible.  He said the protesters should go get a job.  I think he missed the point.  The point is that they can't find a job, which is the point of the demonstrations.  He seems to think these are just a bunch of lazy no-goods.  Even if that were true, then why are all these people organizing and demonstrating at this time in history--this hasn't happened since the 1960's.

I was a demonstrator back in the 1960's for civil rights and against the Viet Nam War.  I was arrested for demonstrating in a civil rights demonstration.  Back then we were demonstrating against one aspect of American life--racial prejudice and then the ongoing War, which is a lot different than the demonstrations that are going on now.  The present demonstrations seem to be in response to the entire social and economic system. And it's what is going on in this system that has driven the most politically sensitive people to the streets.

The USA has bifurcated between the have and have-nots, the rich and the poor, which is a very bad thing.  I blame the Republicans for this state of affairs.  We can't cure the economic situation in America without raising taxes on the people who can afford to pay more.  The country needs more revenue coming in as well as the tax cuts.  I feel that most of the tax cuts should come from the military.  This idea that we tax less the people who provide the jobs so that they will provide more jobs is bogus.  People who have a lot of money only think about making more, not in spending their money providing jobs.  Taxing big business won't keep them from expanding and hiring more people.  It hasn't kept any businesses from growing or expanding so far in our history, even before the Bush tax cuts.  Our problem is not with businesses expanding, it's keeping them from getting to big to fail so that they have to be bailed out by the government.  That's also a form of irresponsibility.

I agree that some of the demonstrators, both back in the 1960's and presently with OWS, are mentals and are just using the demonstrations to let loose their own personal anger, but that's the way it is in all groups.  I'm sure it was that way during the French Revolution, too.  I'm sure the Tea Party has some intelligent people as well as nut cases.  What counts is the overall message.  However, people like Newt, only wish to dwell on the nut cases and characterize the demonstration by a minority.  The whole point is why are all these people taking to the streets at this time, which hasn't happened since the 1960's.

Jesus Ate Meat?

Mark the Evangelist by Frans Hals

I started listening to these lectures on DVD on the New Testament and also reading it at the same time.  I'm only on the Book, or gospel, of Mark.  The following are some of my own thoughts and observations on my reading  Mark,  which according to the lectures* I'm listening to was the first book written of the New Testament. (*The Great Courses on DVD: The New Testament by Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

I was pretty surprised to read that Jesus ate meat. At least according John Mark who is credited with writing the Book of Mark.  However, maybe since John Mark ate Meat he just assumed that Jesus would eat it, too.  Who knows.  I would have thought Jesus would be a vegetarian.  The Book of Mark was written 30-40 years after Jesus lived, so it's hard to determine what is true and what is heresay.  It could be that in Mark when it says that Jesus sat down to meat, it just mean't he sat down to dinner.  I also think that maybe food was so scarce back then that people ate whatever came their way.  To be able to choose your diet seems to me rather a luxury from a prosperous society.

[Mark 2:15 "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him."]

In the Old Testament is a story (quite possibly apocryphal) about how God originally made man to be a vegetarian, but man wanted to eat meat so badly that God relented and said "Well, okay.  I'll give you that."  I paraphrase. [one can only paraphrase God--or Jesus.]

Another astonishing thing I found in reading Mark: often after Jesus heals a person he tells them not to tell anyone of what he just did.  As if he wants to keep it a secret, but, of course, they do tell everyone and the word gets out.  I wonder if Jesus said not to tell anyone only because he knew that would make them do the opposite.  Maybe Jesus was the first person documented to use reverse psychology.  It's impossible to believe that he didn't know men's minds well enough to know that they were going to tell people no matter what he said.  [Mark 8:36 -- And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it:].  I've just found out that this only occurs in the Book of Mark.  In Luke, Jesus doesn't say that at all.  It's just the same story told at different times by two different men.

For me, the biggest message of the Book of Mark is how the mind controls the body, which is something I've always thought anyway.  In Mark, Jesus heals people by getting rid of their demons (a metaphor for sin and guilt).  He actually kills their demons, which is just another way of saying by making the person understand that their sins have been forgiven, it removes the guilt from their mind.  This removal of guilt is what heals the body.   All through the Book of Mark it says that Jesus killed the sick person's mental demons and then the person was healed of their physical affliction.  As soon as Jesus healed the person's sick mind, their body was healed.  People with healthy minds are always physically healthier than people with sick minds.

In the Book of Mark it also tells about how Jesus sent out his disciples to teach and to heal people.  I think this shows that anyone can learn how to heal people.  Jesus certainly wasn't alone in religious history for being able to do this.  It's just a matter of realizing that the mind can control the body.  That the spiritual can be more important than the physical, but a person must believe this in order for it to be true.  And having demons means that a person is so full of sin and the resulting guilt that he can't believe that.

[Mark 3:14-15    "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, [15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils"]

Another thing I learned about Jesus from Mark was that Jesus had a rather liberal attitude about keeping the sabbath.  (Mark 3:24 -- And the Pharisees said onto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? [picking and eating corn]).  [3:25] And he said onto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? (Mark 3:27 - And he said onto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:  [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.)  This also indicates that Jesus could read.  I don't know if that was common for a carpenter in his day or not, but I have my doubts.  However, maybe because John Mark could read, he made the assumption that Jesus could, too.

The Book of Mark wasn't written until at least 40 years after Jesus died.  It would be impossible to quote Jesus exactly after that amount of time, and yet the New Testament is full of Jesus's quotes as though these were his exact words.  People didn't go around writing down everything that Jesus said.  There is so much in the Bible that is out of time sequence do to the fact that it was written so much later after the fact.  It would be like writing a story that took place in the 1950's and talking about people consulting their computers.

Another important point that the Book of Mark makes is that a whole person doesn't need a physician.  Obviously, because a spiritually well person also has a healthy body.

Jesus Renames People


Mark 3:16-17
"And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:"

The above reminds me of the American Indians who gave names to people like "Thunder Cloud" and "Little Feather," etc.  Buddhists and Catholics (but not Protestants) do the same thing.  When Catholic women become Nuns, they often take on a new name.  It must be a common trait of all religions to do that.  People like having a moniker to indicate that they have undergone a big change from what they were before.  People can't keep things to themselves.  They have to show the world, because, I believe, we are social animals.  However, I always thought it a symptom of spiritual superiority when people didn't care what other people thought about them or have a need to impress other people.