Relation of the head covering to Genesis 6

Just a little blurb for a new post at Hidden Glory I titled "Head covering, Long hair, the Watchers and the Nephilim.

Yet another post on Bohemian Grove, Pt. 5, *Groan*

OK, one more post on the Bohemian Grove. Not that I'm going to say anything new, but here's a particularly blatant example of the same old. I'm just fed up with this kind of nonsense and this is a big fat ad that reaches the height of stupidity, from that same "Cutting Edge" (WAY OVER the edge if you ask me):

This is an ad for a DVD titled Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove, or Order of Death, including two of Alex Jones' films on the Bohemian Grove. It's all based on his ONE brief crashing of the place, in which he got ONE very shaky film shot of the "Cremation of Care" event and NOTHING ELSE while he was there, and yet his ONE brief incursion into the Grove without ANY OTHER CONTACT yielded enough material for TWO films? Must be padded with a lot of extraneous stuff to supply insinuations from his own imagination, and yet it supposedly

Proves Presidents Bush and Clinton, plus officials like Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, are Satanists!

OH GIVE US A BREAK! Go see the 1981 news video about the place I posted earlier for a much-needed reality check. I just put it at the bottom of this post.

Alex Jones presents his newest film, "The Order of Death", an amazing and horrifying look into the rites and rituals of the modern day descendents of Babylonian mystery cults. "Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove" documented the first ever hidden camera incursion into the Grove and the bizzare pagan ritual, the Cremation of Care, practiced by its members, all men, including both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and Henry Kissenger to name but a few.

Bizarre pagan ritual, ha! It's a bunch of aging fraternity boys being entertained with a mock ritual to launch their vacation camp-out in the redwood grove, put on by the THEATRICAL CORE OF THE BOHEMIAN CLUB, WHICH WAS FOUNDED BY A GROUP OF ACTORS. The guests' cares and worries are "put to death" in this mock sacrifice, after which they hoot and holler and guzzle beer like any gang of American guys (as opposed to pagan priests), according to the 1981 news video. Besides, there are plenty of OTHER pictures of the Cremation of Care to be found on a Google Image Search. It's not as if Alex Jones was needed to get us one. It's not all THAT "secret" in other words, but Alex Jones keeps milking his one brief invasion of the grove for a hundred times what it's worth.

Scroll down to the You Tube video of the 1981 news report that SHOWS A PICTURE OF THE CREMATION OF CARE even that far back. Not all THAT secret, is it? All Alex Jones accomplished was to get an inferior shaky shot of the same thing, nothing new! Also, in that same news report someone who DOES know a lot about the Grove event and wrote a book about it is also interviewed, someone who spent a lot more time learning about it than this Alex Jones with his ONE-TIME VERY SHORT experience there. That's ALL he has, that one VERY BRIEF visit in which he got a bad shot of the Cremation of Care, and all the rest of his information is made up out of his own imagination to pad his publications. Nobody should pay good money for that tripe.

"The Order of Death" picks up where "Dark Secrets" leaves off. This new work exposes the connections between the Bohemian Club and Skull and Bones and other occult secret societies. Jones explores the roots of the Grove and its links to occult networks dating back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.

The Skull and Bones is just another fraternity, this one for young Yale students, for the scions of the rich and powerful, just a silly secret club of kid stuff antics with a spooky death theme, that is shared by families with common political interests. Good grief.

The only connection with Bohemian Grove is that the same wealthy families are represented in both places and the entertainment gets into silliness. As for the roots in "occult networks dating back to Egypt and Babylon" all Jones did was assume that big owl statue is more than just a big owl statue to invoke knowledge and wisdom for a bunch of men reliving childhood summer camp, assumed it MUST have pagan connotations, and went looking for anything to prove his own assumption. He tracked down some connections with the meaning of owls in some pagan religions and declared his own findings to be The True Reason for the Cremation of Care rite, no matter WHAT the attendees think. He also made the big mistake of connecting Moloch with the owl, for which Scott Johnson showed there is no evidence, which ought already to blow his case. This is all nothing but a huge imaginative invention with no grounding in reality.

his new film delves deeply into the history of the Grove where powerful men make decisions that affect the world but are completely hidden from public scrutiny. "The Order of Death" details how the Grove has been the backdrop for some of the most earthshattering events in human history including the development of the Starwars program and the Manhattan Project.

Gee whillikers, batman, we gotta go bust this place. Oh puhleeze. When big name politicians get together ANYWHERE we can expect them to be working out events that are going to impact our world. BIG DEAL! If there's a case to be made that information is being kept secret that ought to be made public, none of that requires the specific location of the Bohemian Grove as some special sort of breeding ground for such plans.

"The Order of Death" also features never before seen footage captured by a daring former Grove employee including an astounding look inside the owl worshiped at the Cremation of Care ritual.

Ooo, I bet that's a big surprise! There are descriptions of the inside of this owl to be found online already. I ran across them myself in my researches, and it didn't seem interesting enough to dwell on. It's apparently a big hollow statue. So what? And this refrain that this owl is "worshiped" is utterly ridiculous.

Note: "Cremation of Care" is a know Illuminist Satanic ritual; therefore, Presidents Bush and Clinton and all other American leaders participating in Bohemian Grove are proven to be Satanic!

Woo hoo, boy, that must be a surprise to THEM! Imagine that, participating in this "known Illuminist Satanic ritual" (in which Jones even got it wrong about Moloch and owls) which makes them "Satanic."

AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEVER GETS MENTIONED: This summer event hosts at least TWO THOUSAND guests. There's a picture of an enormous number of men sitting at end-to-end tables that are laid out in a semi circle in a clearing, in that same 1981 news video I keep mentioning. They aren't ALL political bigwigs. Are they ALL "Satanic" because they all witness this phony "sacrifice?"

How come this guy Jones isn't being sued for libel? Or is some libel so over the top it's not worth the trouble?

What I'd like to see is a REAL Christian Watchman ministry take this guy down.

Here's that 1981 news report on the Grove:

Bohemian Grove pt 4 "Sexual depravity"

I thought this topic was finished. I keep forgetting about the "depraved sexual activities" the members of Bohemian Grove are accused of. Here's what an ad for a book at Cutting Edge Ministries says:

8. Bohemian Grove

The Bohemian Club (founded in 1872) and the Bohemian Grove enlist top male leaders for scandalous and depraved sexual activities. "Every Republican president since Herbert Hoover has belonged. . . Here is a small sampling of some of the prominent members: Stephen Bechtel, Jr. . . Joseph Coors . . . Et al."["Secret Societies and their Members." page 4 of 4.]

Of its near 3000 members, other participants include(d) the Bushes, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Merv Griffin, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Danny Glover and others. ". . .some of the most powerful men on earth doing despicable sexual things . . . nude and semi-nude men worshiping a giant idol of an owl in a deeply occult ritual, and what appeared to be an actual human sacrifice of a burning, screaming white man . . . ."

[And] they choose who will be allowed to run for the high office of president and the vice president of the U.S.A."["Expose of the Bohemian Grove." P.1; 06-05-02]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH THING GOES ON AT BOHEMIAN GROVE AMONG THESE GUESTS? Where are the pictures? There are plenty of pictures of events at the Grove, of men sitting around in ordinary dress. Where is the testimony of others who were there? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

We know there must be a fair amount of homosexual activity that goes on there, if only because Richard Nixon said so, calling it the faggiest place he'd ever seen or something like that. Well, the Bohemian Club is made up of actors from San Francisco, so it's a good guess there IS a lot of homosexuality there among them and their friends at least. But nobody has yet shown that the big name guests are involved in any of that, the people so many seem to be so intent to smear with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to discredit them.

This utterly ridiculous idea that the theatrics around the "Cremation of Care" are anything close to a "deeply occult ritual" much less an "actual human sacrifice" I've already touched on. Apparently the actor who played the "sacrifice" in some productions did a great job of screaming for his life -- or the recorded sound effects did. If that much is so ridiculously misrepresented I have no doubt the participation of all those big name politicians in "depraved sexual activities" is similarly misrepresented. And I already saw how some of this kind of misrepresentation got manufactured by the book by Cathy O'Brien, who is the subject of my last post. (By the way, didn't someone say she claims to have been inside Bohemian Grove? How did that happen if women aren't allowed there?)

This is irresponsible. This Cutting Edge guy is not a "watchman" this guy is a scandalmonger.

Scott Johnson quotes from Cutting Edge from time to time. Get a clue, Scott Johnson.

I hate having to get into all this fringe stuff, like the Cathy O'Brien book and the Bohemian Grove. I'm obliged to as long as I listen to talks by someone like Scott Johnson and he takes it seriously. I stopped listening to him for a long time because he went over the edge too many times for me, but recently I've come back to listening again and have been hearing some talks I do appreciate -- such as his report on Maitreya's plans to appear soon with a "star" heralding the event, the series on the Hebrew Roots movement, and an older series on the tribe of Dan which he biblically documents very nicely (I'm not so sure about the earlier part of that series where he gets into the "Merovingian blood line").

However frustrated I get with him sometimes, I end up thinking that a great deal of what he has to say is necessary and useful information. As usual it's a matter of taking what's useful and throwing out the rest. I believe we are in the very last days and I didn't need him to tell me that. I've personally experienced some occultic phenomena that many Christians haven't, so I'm probably much more open to discussions of this sort of thing than others, and I think it's important to know about it in the last days, as we are told that the Antichrist will dazzle with false "signs and wonders," and anyone who doesn't know just how dazzling they can be may be deceived by them.

But the same people who track these things also have a distressing habit of getting off into the fringe areas where they function as little more than gossip hounds and fingerpointers.

O Watchman, clean those glasses (Cathy O'Brien's outrageous empty accusations)

In one of my posts about the Bohemian Grove I touched briefly on Scott Johnson's acceptance of the allegations by one Cathy O'Brien against many government leaders in her book, Trance: Formation of America. I decided to see if I could find out more so I went to You Tube and found a speech she gave divided into seven parts. I managed to get through five and a half at this point. If after posting this I listen to the rest and it substantially changes my view of things I'll be back to correct anything I say here that needs correction.

What's amazing about these videos is how much of absolutely nothing she actually says. She just rambles on and on in an abstract way about generalities. A lot of theoretical hoo ha about how the mind supposedly works, how mind control is possible with really nothing at all to show that she actually experienced anything of the sort. She speaks of all the "abuse" she experienced without giving a single fact you could pin it to.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway that this woman is mentally deranged is that her naming of names includes only BIG name politicians. No assistants or secretaries or second-stringers for her, no mere grunts in the service of the One World Order, they are all well known public figures she identifies as her acquaintances and tormenters. Why should such top-level people involve themselves with a mere guinea pig in some experiment, which is of course what she claims to have been. Why are there no names of subordinates at all?

If she actually heard George Romney talk about using mind control methods in global education (part 4), surely such a speech should be publicly available. Why doesn't she reference it? Or was this a private meeting in which he spoke only to a few special chosen such as herself?

Without identifying a single policy of Robert C. Byrd's she broadly claims

"He has made sure that more and more states' rights are lost. He manipulated the Constitution,"

but gives not a single quote, and makes not the slightest attempt to explain why she brings him up.

It's just a hodgepodge, in fact basically nothing more than a word salad of half-baked pseudoscience plus accusations against name after name, skipping from one to another with no point to any of it.

"The different criminal operations that I was forced to participate in during the Reagan-Bush administration are detailed in our book Trance Formation of America. That information was compiled for Congress as testimony."

Wouldn't you think a fact or two might nevertheless be forthcoming in a speech of such length as this one to support such an outrageous accusation as "criminal operations"?

"I've known Dick Cheney through Gerald Ford since 1975. He is the most brutal person I've ever encountered personally by far, but it's his attitude and his agenda that is so frightening." (part 6).

Wow, she gets away with that sort of general statement without the slightest attempt to back it up, and then she just goes rambling on to the next subject. And people take this woman seriously!

"I've known Bill Clinton since 1979 when he was governor of Arkansas ... through some CIA blackops ...cocaine operations going through Arkansas."

As with all her references to public figures in this part of the speech the information goes nowhere. She tosses out an allegation, really nothing more than namedropping, giving no more information than is already public knowledge, and passes on to something else.

"Schwarzenegger wants to change the Constitution to make it possible for himself to run for President. He's a good friend of Bush's."

Again, completely irrelevant information. No point to it, no context. Just throwing names out to smear them all with vague hints at terrible complicities in who knows what. She just skips from one thing to another. Again, it seems to be merely name-dropping.

She also heard "Bill Bennett" talk about this and that, worked with him she says.

Where are the people she accuses? Isn't it normal to expect that the accused be heard? Well, probably she's so obviously off center that nobody thinks she's worth answering. But at least shouldn't there be some whistleblowers against such craziness?

Or if they're her friends shouldn't they offer a word in her behalf?

Isn't it normal to expect that a FACT OR TWO be produced in support of an allegation of such terrible things as she imputes to various men? (And women, even Hillary Clinton apparently). DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE IS ANY MORE?

You can even see her struggling for what to say next at times as she loses her thread of thought. She seems to count on being able to produce some sort of gobbledygook and she does indeed manage to do that but there are times when she looks a bit frightened that she doesn't know what to say next, but then she comes up with some more word salad and all is fine again. I think this must be because it's mostly made up, it's not from knowledge or even memory at all.

That anyone takes this stuff seriously is the tragedy here. This woman is seriously deluded. I think there is a medical category for her particular kind of derangement. "Delusions of grandeur" came to mind. Google led me to "megalomania" and "delusions of persecution." The entry at Wikipedia is being questioned but it is at least descriptive of what I was trying to get at. It's not a mental disorder in itself although it may be part of a psychosis.

The amazing thing is that anyone sat through over an hour's worth of her delusional ramblings, that anybody takes her seriously at all.

The Watchmen who have set themselves to expose frauds and delusions in these last days should be working to expose THIS sort of fraud instead of falling for such pernicious nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Unfortunately she's a very sad case and probably was abused. A few others doubt her testimony but apparently think she and her husband are doing it for money. My impression is that she's doing it for more psychological reasons. And for all I know there's a GRAIN of truth in some of her testimony but there is simply no way to find out because she's so untrustworthy a witness. In any case, her testimony is so far from reliable you have to start with protecting the victims of her accusations.

Bohemian Grove Pt 3 & "watchman" type exposes in general

One last remark about the Bohemian Grove: It's none of our business. It's none of a Christian's business what people do on their vacations, whether they are the wealthy and powerful or anybody else. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that if such men are plotting political actions we object to they could do it anywhere, they don't need the Bohemian Grove for the purpose? High level political talks go on behind closed doors all the time, what's the big deal about some of them going on in the woods?

If it's the pagan ceremonies that bother you, it's SO clear that's just theatrical and nobody engaged in them believes they are invoking supernatural powers, but if anybody is, it's a very few who put on the show, the guests have nothing to do with it. Besides, this country is full of pagan rites of all sorts now anyway. If you want to kindly warn the guests that they might be exposing themselves to occultic influences that's fine, though I doubt they'd listen because they take it all for entertainment, but that's not what these self-appointed exposers are doing, they are fingerpointing at the attendees and even the invitees as if they are committing some sort of crime even to be on the BG's list.

I believe all this applies to the Skull and Bones society as well. How silly to make so much of the childish pranks of fraternity boys. Why should we be surprised if they play with devilish things -- the world is full of devilish things.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Exposing the occultic influence of Disney productions or Hollywood IS our business because they directly affect the public. Exposing heresies in Christian movements is our business because they can mislead Christians. Exposing the claims of anti-Christian religions and leaders is our business too, for the same reason. We are supposed to be watching for signs of the times, such as counterfeit Christs in these last days, to avoid being led astray. There are "watchman" ministries that focus on helping us do that, but some subjects they get into are not helpful toward that end.

When it comes to specific accusations of specific political leaders some who delve into these things are not fearful enough about smearing a person's reputation with little cause. They forget the Biblical rule of charity and that we are not to judge others, especially those who are not believers. These slandermongers have no sense of restraint, and believe the worst against a man on the flimsiest of evidence. Some of the most hideous accusations are made in these "ministries," so hideous that you'd think a person would want to think twice, three, four times before even hinting that they might be true. When proof is there, that's one thing, I'm talking about cases where the proof is mostly somebody's emotional "witness" and mere suspiciousness based on a few scattered impressions that can be misinterpreted.

I also have a problem with the claims about the Illuminati and that sort of thing. I don't know if half of what is said about this group is even half true. I just don't know. You'd think with all that's said about them I'd have a clearer idea but I don't. There's a lot of heat but little light, a lot of bald assertion backed up by little real evidence. "The Illuminati do this, the Illuminati do that." Where's the evidence? Some of the powers attributed to them are laughably beyond the human. Many assertions are made, but the quality of evidence is really questionable. I'm not sure it even matters, either. Why do we care if Satan has some powerful people in his employ? We know he has power in this world and for that matter power over all unsaved human beings. What good does it do us to know such specific things if true? All we are to do is live according to Christ. He didn't tell us to delve into the doings of the nonbelieving world.

Bohemian Grove Pt. 2

I keep finding these feverishly serious discussions online -- apparently by Christians -- about the Bohemian Grove, as if it truly is believed that what goes on there is Satan-possessed world movers and shakers plotting the demise of us all to take over the world etc.

Hey, I have no doubt there are conspiracies in this world, perhaps some very high-level ones, I also have no doubt that many of our world leaders are determined to bring about the One World Order, I also have no doubt that Satan has his hand in these things, but you can't just go around taking mere appearances for fact the way so many are doing. Some people are misguided enough to think one world government is a good idea without feeling any need of participating in occultic rites to bring it about.

In the case of the Bohemian Grove, the productions of actors for the sake of entertainment, philosophical ponderings, and even just silly amusements are getting taken for reality in a way that would be laughable if it weren't that such suspicions contribute to the world's spiritual evils in themselves. Put "Bohemian Grove" in Google Image and you'll find many old pictures of theatrical events that have been staged there, including Shakespearean productions among others, all in full costume. There are also pictures of the supposedly "religious" ceremonies that get people so upset about satanic goings on, one for instance of "priests" and "cardinals" in robes kneeling before a cathedralish stage setting as some sort of ritual is enacted. Is it really a "Black Mass" as some say? Catholic ritual is a favorite subject of such mockery because of all its pomp and regalia, but some actually take such a performance as implying a serious Catholic influence among the participants or a serious satanic influence -- WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

In the context of the Bohemian Grove's founding by actors, and the many theatrical performances they put on during the summer event, WHY IS THIS TAKEN FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER THEATRICAL PRODUCTION?

They may think they are making a profound moral statement in their productions, or they may simply be performing a mockery of religion. They probably do both at this summer event. Mockery of religion is FUN for some people in this fallen world. There is also the fact that sometimes a pseudo-solemn religious enactment is intended to capture what worldlings wrongly think is the essence of religion, ritual itself, for the sake of comfort or a sort of therapy, although nothing in it is taken for genuine reality. Don't we know this about fallen human nature by now?

I don't know how all this is taken, it's just obvious it's theatrical and not intended as a religious rite as such. I'm not arguing that all this is "just good clean fun" either. They are worldly entertainments with a worldly philosophy behind them, and there is also apparently a big homosexual presence there, among the actors at least (which is often associated with false religion). I'm just saying it's not serious Satanic invocation. It's metaphor or symbolism of psychological and philosophical import to some people. That's bad enough. Don't reify it and compound the problem.

As for the secrecy, I can't think of it as any more sinister than wanting to keep a private men's club private.

From the Wikipedia article:

Many of the notable participants have been politically conservative, leading conspiracy theorists to speculate that the club is actually being used as a meeting place to secretly determine important public policies. However, the majority of the members and guests who are targets of such attacks meet only over the middle weekend of the encampment, and the club largely remains a haven for artists and art lovers. [Also at the link there's a description of an event by an attendee that gives the flavor of the place -- an attempt to recreate an actual Druidic rite -- again, as theater -- along with plenty of pranks and practical jokes]

"High jinks" and "low jinks" are terms the club uses to describe its events:

HIGH JINKS: antic, caper, escapade, frolic, fun, horseplay, larks, mischief, monkey business, monkeyshines, practical joke, prank, shenanigans, stunt, tomfoolery

It has some of the flavor of the Renaissance Faire, also a theatrical event, in which costumed actors go about recreating a Renaissance festival where you can get interestingly different "fast food" and watch Shakespearean performances in the setting of a Renaissance village. This IS more like "good clean fun" than the Burning Man event I mentioned as comparison in my last post on the Bohemian Grove. The Faires are fun entertainments, which is all I think the BG performances are meant to be. But they ARE worldly entertainments so leave it at that. There's no need to invoke demons on top of it.

==============
Later: I posted this news report from 1981 about the Grove at the other blog entry on this subject but I think I'll repost it here, because it's a lot more realistic than all the conspiracy stuff about the place:

What IS health care all about, really? A worldly system versus God's provision.

I got this link to a point by point discussion of President Obamas's town hall statements on the health care bill from Z's blog. This is the best and clearest presentation of the problems I've seen -- everyone should read it. It's a rational discussion of just what insurance is all about, no matter who's in charge, and keeps in perspective the undesirability of having the government be the insuring party.

There are complicated calculations involved in any insurance carrier's decision about what to insure and what not to, what to pay for when a claim is made and what not to, based on the economics of the situation. This can't be avoided no matter who runs the insurance. But if there are many insurance carriers to choose from, you can at least choose according to which of them support your own main concerns best. If the government is your only choice you're going to have to accept whatever the government decides, and if you happen to be opposed to, say, coverage for abortion, you might not have a choice but to support it against your will. I'm not saying that's a problem with this bill, I haven't heard that about it, but I'm trying to make a general point. If your concerns are the best kind of coverage for the problems of the elderly, again you can choose among the carriers if there are many to choose from; with the government you have to accept whatever they say the elderly are allowed. And so on.

I'm admittedly barely educated on this and have very little understanding or for that matter patience with the calculations involved in these things. I tend to throw up my hands and say, Oh well, if I can't afford it I'll just have to lump it; if I die I die.

But I think I do grasp the overall situation here. Insurance is an attempt to guarantee expensive medical care to people who can't or don't want to pay for it if it becomes needed. It's a form of gambling. You pay in monthly at what is hoped to be a reasonably low rate so that if you contract a very expensive disease, what you will have paid in won't amount to much of a proportion of what the treatment costs and yet the service providers will be paid fairly. Insurance carriers gamble that the majority of payers will remain healthy and their monthly premiums will subsidize a minority of serious medical needs of a few payers over the long haul.

Unfortunately medical care has become prodigiously expensive in the last decades so that monthly premiums are still too high for a great swath of the population these days. People complain about this but it's ridiculous to complain. The economics of the situation is what determines these things, not people trying to make life hard for other people (although irrational laws can accomplish a lot toward making life hard). But along comes government at this point to promise coverage in spite of economic reality. They even call health care a "right" in blatant defiance of simple reality.

This is the basis for the government reform of health care, that most people can no longer afford insurance. There is no WAY they can afford it either, under ANY health care bill that takes economic reality into account, unless others subsidize them at that level too. When government takes over insurance the situation switches. In the hands of the government it's no longer the healthy who are subsidizing the sick, it's the wealthy who are subsidizing the poor.

This is socialized medicine.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -------Thomas Jefferson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Private insurance companies cannot do this, can't do it practically or legally, but the government can because they can tax us. Private insurance companies depend on a high ratio of the healthy to the sick to have the money to finance the services they are willing to cover. When a great number of people can't afford their rates and the government steps in, now TAXES enter into the financing of services. The greater the need the higher the taxes, and of course the richer will be taxed more than others, the poor not at all in some cases(which is already the case).

There is of course a limit to how much can be taxed out of us so just as with private insurance carriers costs have to be cut somewhere. Where they are cut is a lot of what is controversial about this current health care bill.

We already have socialism to a great extent. It's manifestly unjust to take money from some to finance the needs of others, but that's the way the world is going. We're already half way there; Obama wants to take us further down that road. Private insurance isn't quite so unethical because everybody knows they're gambling and they can choose to take the gamble or not. But under goverment insurance, if the plan really could pay for needed services, it could only do it by extracting a LOT more money from the wealthy for the purpose. If it can't get away with that, it can only do it by cutting services drastically, making health care a nightmare for a majority of the people, spreading not only the wealth but the inconvenience and sometimes the medical negligence of it all, which Canadians and others object to in their own socialized systems, which drives those with complicated medical problems to the USA for our much superior medical services, possibly about to become our late-lamented services.

Perhaps I've misunderstood some of this and I'll try to learn more if the opportunity presents itself.

Meanwhile I've lately developed an objection to insurance as such, from a Christian point of view. It IS gambling. And anything that costs more than you can afford is not a "right." Gambling is bad enough but socialized medicine is downright pernicious. If it weren't for the complicated economic system of health care delivery, care for the suffering would be a VOLUNTARY gift given by those who had the means to those who need them. VOLUNTARY giving is the only RIGHT way to do this. Any form of forced "giving" such as taxation, on the other hand, is criminal.

Unfortunately we have become so used to the system we live under and so passive in the face of it, the very idea of a voluntary system has dropped out of view except for a few who have the wealth to help some people without even feeling the crunch. In the early days of Christianity there were many acts of mercy performed by the followers of Christ, ordinary followers with minimal incomes, often self-sacrificially. It was common for unwanted babies to be exposed to die, but Christians would take them in and care for them and raise them. The sick were also left to die in the streets, and again Christians would take them in and care for them. Eventually Christians developed orphanages to care for rejected or parentless children, and hospitals for the sick. This all started from Holy-Spirit-inspired Christian compassion, without expectation of monetary reward, strictly in service to God. It has since grown into this gigantic social institution that is run for profit and no longer by Christians. In a sense the unbelieving world is trying to do on a wordly economic basis what Christians originally did in obedience to God. That's really what Marxism is too, the aping of Christ by the corrupt fallen nature on the basis of worldly thought, and historically it's always led to unimaginable horrors because it has the wrong foundation.

I think Christians need to rethink all this. I think Christians need to find a way to opt out of the government system if at all possible, as receivers at least if we can't as payers, trust in God, and focus ourselves on taking care of each other one way or another. I think if we set our minds to do this, refuse everything that amounts to gambling (it's a substitute for faith), think in terms of self-sacrifice, do it all with constant prayer for God's guidance and provision, we could revolutionize the care of the suffering just as the early Christians did. I don't know what form this would take, I'm admittedly short on specifics and long on theology, and I also feel uncomfortable proposing anything along these lines because at the moment I'm more likely to be a candidate for the care than for the self-sacrificial giving, but I pray God won't let me stay in this situation but will put me in a position to be of use to others in spite of my lack of means. He can do that. "All things are possible with God." Anything done in His power transcends all human effort. It starts with Christians seeking God for direction and power.