Skip to comments.A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub
Posted on 07/16/2012 9:11:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Recently I heard a friend of mine echo the sentiment former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker expressed in an interview with WND: I would vote for the devil himself over Barack Obama. People say this to make clear how deeply they abhor Obama and all his works. Sadly, for them and for America, their passionate hatred of Obama puts them exactly where the devil wants them to be. The Father of Lies chuckles with satisfaction. He gloats triumphantly at the fact that their hatred of his appearance in one form has maneuvered them into supporting his triumph in another.
I grieve deeply as I contemplate the fact that millions of Americans are letting themselves be caught in this diabolical snare. As I tried to point out in 2008, the lesser of evils is still evil. No matter how such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.
Im morally certain this is why Christ admonished his disciples to make striving for Gods perfection the standard for their actions, rather than their hatred of evil. He thought it better to fail reaching for this standard than succeed by abandoning ones life to the devils dominion. He thought it better to fail in the worlds eyes while commending ones spirit to God (as he does on the cross) than succeed by casting ones lot with Gods adversary.
All this came to my mind this week as I read the excellent half-truths in David Limbaughs column
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Sweet, blessed sanity. Thank you.
I’ve kidded about it too. I said it’s fine with me if Mitt manages to strangle Obama with some magic long johns.
We’re talking about a space case religion. How that influences Mitt is far less clear to me, but it might be clearer to others. There is an official clean living side to the LDS, and then there is a libertine undercurrent (hardly anyone outside the LDS thinks Joseph Smith was just a disinterested prophet, even if mistaken about what he was channeling).
Will the LDS even exist at that point is an open issue.
Yes, we need a miracle, some way for someone besides MittCare to get the nomination.
If that doesn’t happen, not sure what I’ll do. Keep wavering. The question comes down to this: Is an America under MittCare better than CWII under obastard?
I just don’t know anymore.
But you cannot pretend that discussion in that house is not under such a shadow.
Reality is a bitch. The Primaries are OVER. It’s the Commie or the other guy. Pick a better comparison to make your point.
As someone WITH Cancer, you can stick that sign up your a$$.
The reported enmity towards having Sarah Palin even show her face at the GOP convention is surely odd in that regard. As though she might remind those there of what might have been? But the delegates would not waver from Mitt just because they saw Sarah Palin. Maybe more like his new campaign manager hated Sarah’s guts, so Mitt wants to keep peace by keeping the two apart.
And today cancers can be cured, while AIDS at best can be only held at bay as a chronic ailment.
Just the funny ol' way I was raised, I s'pose.
Two Chemo Regimens in the last seven years makes me a little touchy, not because of what I went through, but sitting there for eight hours a day talking to people that are / were suffering even more, including my Late B-I-L who suffered a horrible death.
I just saw that BS Post and I am PISSED. I never get PISSED, but I'm there. I don't wish Cancer on anyone, even Pharaoh Obama, and that stupid comparison makes us all look stupid.
I keep swearing off these Romney is as bad as Obama Threads but I make the mistake of lurking and jumping in. I should know better, it ain't good for my health, physical and mental...
“...people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.
People who put their trust in God need never accept the devils choice, fighting evil with evil. ....Many Americans pray and profess to believe that His kingdom is near. But in their sovereign duty as citizens they now propose to abandon their profession. It is what has made self-government possible for them. It can do so again, even now, but only if they remember it in time. As for the choice between Obama and Romney, its the devils choice either way. Only evil can come of it.”
There’s the unabashed BIBLICAL TRUTH.
Anyone wanting to play with that and spin it for political truth and expedience, are serving a devil.
Between Obama and Romney, voting for either one is not a choice - it’s a trap served to us by the Destroyer himself.
BTW - I get your point. I just had to rant a bit.
He nails it. I voted for him in the 2000 primary. If only...
I meant to say “I thought conservatives love America”
Not supporting Romney is hating American.
Truth is Simple.
The economic abyss is nothing compared to this:
Mitt quote: "..gay couples raising kids. That's the American way.."
This is why I will never vote for Mitt.
Would you believe between Wormwood and Glubose?
I do pray that God will place His healing Hand upon you and deliver you from leukemia. God has chosen to heal folks as seriously or more seriously afflicted than you. With God absolutely ANYTHING is possible.
AND, don't let us get to you. It isn't personal. May God bless you and yours.
It's the underlined part that gets people zotted. It's just fine to disagree. It's fine to post pro-Romney stuff. It's all around us every day. FR has far more pro-Romney posts than anti-Romney posts. I know. I'm not a Romney supporter.
Why can't it just be, "if you can't tell the difference THEN I DISAGREE WITH YOU or YOU NEED TO THINK IT THROUGH AGAIN or I DON'T THINK YOU SEE THE DANGER?" Why does it have to be "you are stupid?"
Personalized attacks cause trouble. Problem statements generally don't.
I believe pro-Romney supporters have difficulty realizing that conservatives are simply not united behind Romney. They aren't. They won't be. It's the nature of this election.
I do know this, though: Calling someone STUPID is not the way to win anyone to your side. You might never win them to your side anyway, but the "stupid tactic" will drive them away. Is that what you are looking to do?
Thank you so much for posting this.
Thanks BlackElk, I appreciate your kind thoughts. I’m the luckiest guy walking my FRiend. No complaints, I just went off when I saw that stupid Cancer / Aids BS Post. Take care.
Go look at the same anti romney freepers post on other subjects, they call them a lot of freepers worse then stupid.
I was posting how I would never for for Romney or Jeb Bush ever,(I was stupid) But to defeat obama, I would.
Free Republic keeps helping to get Obama elected by not supporting America/Romney,should change name to FreeHelpFor Obama.com
Our Father created us and gave us free will. He did send us a message that we were veering off course.
We ignore it at our own peril. Our own soul and that of the Republic are at stake.
Well you certainly would not view it as being as open to clashing viewpoints as, say, the halls of Congress.
Oh my Lord KC. I commiserate with you that you’re suffering from a declining condition with a disease that has no cure known yet. Some cancers today can be cured, others slowed, and others can’t even be touched. My father had one that was slowed, but not stopped, and he perished of it. I can only pray for what? well if at all possible, that God by utter miracle takes it away, or enlightens scientists with a cure while it still can be used. And in all cases, an extraordinary measure of grace to walk through this suffering. I do not envy the position you’re in. In the long term everyone is suffering from a terminal disease called the fallen condition of life on earth. But some decline faster than others for various reasons.
Doesn't need to be.
It, whether site or residence, is what it is... as (solely) established by the owner/host, in both instances.
Guests who cannot abide by established house rules, in either case, have only one polite option open to them: leave.
Ronald Reagan “might” leave it blank. I couldn’t see him going with a non Republican.
But of course if said person hangs a huge sign on the house screaming “FREE” and then a visitor takes that too literally, they might have reason to be sore.
How do you ever, ever get a candidate that is unbad enough to not be a “devil” in this formulation?
I’ve never seen that defined in the context of the argument. All we have available in the political contests of this fallen world, and all that God sees, is sinners pitted against other sinners.
Given a grossly swollen (and, demonstrably, UN-conservative) sense of self-entitlement, on the part of said visitor? They might feel that way, certainly -- there are selfishly petty and irrational types all over, sad to say -- but feelings, however dearly held or keenly felt, are not the same (and, in such matters, cannot trump) as reason.
In any event, it remains incontrovertible that -- once your host has stated "Stop it. Now." -- one either stops, or LEAVES.
Well I saw an encounter where suddenly the host called the guest a liar, did not give the guest a chance to reply to that accusation, and kicked the guest out.
He’d never had to deal with someone that stinky for a position that important... not saying that would be a right or wrong answer.
Also, you cannot reduce the matter to FEELINGS as you are attempting to do. Principles stand. You don’t falsely advertise is one.
Romney may lean Left but he ain't a goddam Red!
Again: that's simply the chance you take, walking about inside of someone else's house. No entitlements; no guarantees.
(... and, of course: said guest might very well have been a liar; and one's host, in such an instance, is in no way required to coddle such, upon discovery of same. Doe-eyed sympathies offered towards the offending party, in such cases, are plainly misplaced ones.)
And the host may have been a false advertiser, too.
I honestly reason and believe that to fit the tone of some of the happenings here, the place ought to abandon the name Free Republic and adopt Conservative Republic. There are sanctions the external world can apply to misrepresentations: shame is one.
Of course I can. That's all that's being offered by way of limp rebuttal, after all: "... oh, but he felt entitled to behave in such-and-such a way, our theoretical visitor -- despite being explicitly told not to, by said property's host/owner -- because he FELT that [Insert Flimsy Rationale Here] -- !"
Arrant, addled nonsense. You wouldn't tolerate someone pissing all over the good furniture and setting fire to the dog, after repeatedly ordering them not to do so, in your own house. Afford others that same baseline amount of control over theirs.
What was that about having to restate arguments and its affect on the validity of what you claim, that you said earlier?
And suffering an injury does not boil down to mere subjective feelings: an implied promise was breached.
Then lay out your best evidence, in such an instance, and make whatever specific case you can. Show whatever cards you may think you have.
Can't do it? Won't do it? No earthly reason to care, then.
And you have utterly failed to show how any analogy to what happened can be drawn to “setting fire to the dog” and such.
I can ask the same of you and if you can’t or won’t there is no earthly reason for me to care either... la di da good bye to you in specific!
(Just returning your gesture.)
"Is this another kind of Godwins law? Find me the entry in the debate dictionary that proves anything remotely close to what you say."
Play one side of the net or the other, Mr. McEnroe... but: play on that side, regardless.
I mimic your swing and you are now COMPLAINING! That’s rich.
Ummmmmmm... I'm not the one obliquely accusing our host of misbehavior or "false advertising,"... so, no, actually. You can't. (Good heavens, what on earth is the matter with you...?)
la di da good bye to you in specific!
Oh, well... whatever. Flounce away, then, if you like.
I actually quoted yours, and now you're having a full-out, red-faced tantrum, by way of response. And weren't you saying something about "la-di-da"ing off into the distance, just scant moments agone...?
Again: absolutely bizarre.
This quote is a keeper: “Logically, the only people who should support Romney are those who embrace Obamas goals, but resent Obamas failure to achieve them. They want to replace his clumsy, bluntly socialist incompetence with Romneys more engaging and sweetly deceptive method of attaining the same end.”
Those willing to vote for Romney call the other side stupid. Those unwilling to vote for Romney call the other side Mittbotts and Romney lovers.
Both sides are just fanning the flames of the bonfire that the GOP-E is enjoying immensely.
Those willing to support Romney see, in Obama, a president who actively works to sandbag this country and its economy. They see, and rightly, a candidate in Romney who would at least give the economy a respite if not a short-term boots.
Those opposed to Romney see a GOP-E willing to embrace socialism out of fear of voter reprisal if they stand up to the looters. They see a corrupt, pallid institution at odds with the long-term conservative goals of paring back government, all in the name of preserving their spot at the Beltway trough. And they wonder if a Romney victory would be a pyrhhic one for this country that would entrench those hogs in their wallow.
There is nothing stupid about either position. Both are attempts to try and sort out the least bad path through the gauntlet that has been thrown down in front of us.
I wish everyone would step back for a moment and realize that the only winner from all of this flaming is the jackasses in the GOP-E who have their RINO and see the havoc that RINO is causing in the camps of their enemy - not the Dems, but the Tea Party.