Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck
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.

By that reckoning then, voting for the lesser evil is somehow righteousness in God's eyes?

That we're all sinners is fact. But making a choice for leadership is actually outlined in scripture in terms of what kind of person is FIT for an office.

We have no business voting for people who promote, espouse, support and act in favor of those things which are anathema God, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But we have arrived at the point where we do, and we are told that voting for this evil is better than the worser evil.

And the slide to oblivion simply accelerates.

And that is what the 'vote Romney' crowd is encouraging, out of fear of Obama, not even considering the fact that this whole election was an orchestration and we're all being played.

We lost already.

And like a dead man walking, we don't even realize it yet.

162 posted on 07/17/2012 10:47:32 AM PDT by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: INVAR

The bible spells out explicitly what’s fit for a church leader. I hope the USA is not planning to be either a Christian or a Mormon church any time soon.

Badness in kings is described by example, not by prescription of the obverse. The entire concept of a worldly king was frowned upon by the Lord, because a fallen monarch could well and truly screw a nation up which was waiting upon that monarch’s every word, but the Lord acceded to Israel’s wishes as part of a plan to do larger things. This is why the US constitution was drawn up with its restraints on the powers of each part of the government. Which, incidentally, is something that Mitt has shown himself more likely to respect than Obama. Fault Mitt for being super-subservient to the Massachusetts supreme court if you wish, but that’s probably safer than how Obama just thumbed his nose at an entire US district that found Obamacare flatly unconstitutional. (If it was Bush in a situation like that, he would have had the decency to hold off on the plan till the USSC had visited it, hypothetically of course since Bush would never have signed off on anything like Obamacare.)


186 posted on 07/17/2012 4:51:26 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson