[roamer_1]

Of course man must choose the lesser of two evils if doing so stops, or potentially, stops the greater evil. Doing otherwise would be morally repugnant.

OK, then find me a place where Christ did so.

[fightinJAG]

I just did.

I’m not going to get into a theological debate with you, unless you want to pursue it in private. But here’s the point:

It was “evil” to fail to keep the Sabbath holy by not following the rules. It was also “evil” to fail to help your animal (as an example) and thus, not only allow unnecessary suffering, but also fail to exercise good stewardship and possibly become unable to provide for one’s family.

Jesus said “get real.” That’s what I’m saying.

You don’t choose between the lesser of two evils just to do it. You do it, and it’s justified, when doing so stops a greater evil. IOW, “choosing the lesser of two evils” is actually not articulating what is happening here. One is “choosing evil.” One is choosing to stop a greater evil by doing a lesser one.