Posted on 08/12/2016 9:04:56 PM PDT by jimluke01
You may have seen the meme come across your social media feeds. It’s a quote by the fiery preacher and great 19th-century theologian Charles Spurgeon: “Of two evils, choose neither.”
I get it. I love reading old Spurgeon sermons and very much appreciate his godly wisdom. I’ve actually posted this quote on my own social media and felt pretty stinkin’ self-righteous about it.
Then it occurred to me. Is it really that simple? Is “choosing neither of two evils” always the right choice? Is it always the wise choice? Is it always the moral choice? What if, God forbid, something like this happened: Let’s say that devout Muslims capture you and your family, hold a gun to your head and say, “You have one of two choices: We will either behead your children, or, alternatively, we will cut off your foot, patch you up and send you hobbling along your way. Choose one. If you refuse to choose, we will choose for you.”
That’s evil. Both choices are evil. Would you “choose the lesser of two evils,” or, as Spurgeon suggests, would you “choose neither,” thereby sealing your fate and that of your children?
“But that’s an unfair analogy!” you say.
OK, I disagree, but let’s try another one.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
That is the most backhanded obtuse endorsement of Trump I have ever seen.
But I read in the Bible and learn the righteousness of all men (except for Jesus Christ) is but filthy rags.
If I refuse to hire a plumber to fix the pipes based on the idea of given a choice between two evils choose neither, than I guess I should not fix them myself because my own righteousness is like filthy rags. Nor should I let anyone fix them, and just let the house flood and pray that Jesus come back early and fix them.
If this is my approach, then I deserve to have my house flooded.
Instead, let us say I decide that I will hire a plumber who is a sinner and have a choice:
Choice A) Thinks the pipes are fine, and was the assistant to my previous plumber who broke the pipes while telling me the pipes are just fine. An email record shows that this plumber has sold my pipes for personal profit, though they have lied about their guilt and insist that there is not water in the house and its all good.
Choice B) Is somebody who curses and swears about how awful the previous plumber and the whole company of crappy plumbers have messed up my house and has promised to make it a great house again. But the news media gives him bad press for swearing too much and seems to hate him irrationally, as do the dishonest plumbers and they are always slandering him...claiming he paints such a dark picture of everything, and there really is not plumbing issue and he is just a crank.
Whatever should I do?
I see Alan Keyes chimed in on the comment section.
Dear Mr Keyes, we are electing the next president, not the next Pope.
I really get tired of the “holier than thou” types. They are so busy going over the small stuff and ignore the big picture. The country is going to hell and they’d be perfectly happy help send it there because they haven’t found perfection in a candidate.
Sophie’s Choice.
Note that (Keyes’ one time campaign director (?) and big time Freeper) Connie Hair is arguably the most demented anti Trumper online.
Yes, the quote sounds like morally righteous counsel, because the implication is that a lesser evil is a type of evil, so by choosing it you are still choosing evil.
But there is an inherent fallacy when there is no non evil alternative. Let’s say you are deciding between robbing either a poor family or a corrupt corporation, and you use the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument to justify robbing the corrupt corporation.
This is wrong because there is a third non evil alternative: Rob no one. In this case the preacher who said “choose neither” is right.
In the example of the children or the foot, however, the father has no non evil alternative. A good father would choose to have his foot cut off, if doing so is the only way he can spare the murder of his children. The preacher would be wrong to say “choose neither” in this example.
When it comes to the 2016 election, if you are convinced (as I am) that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will become President whether you vote or not, then there is no third alternative. (Note that you not voting dies NOT offer a third alternative as President).
So, even I f you are convinced both candidates are evil, but that Trump is the lesser evil, it is your moral duty to vote for the lesser evil, since there is no way that withholding your vote will prevent one of the two from becoming President.
Worse yet, if you believe Trump, although evil, is less evil, then withholding your lesser of two evils vote (which would be for Trump) will actually increase the odds of Clinton winning, and you will have empowered evil. In voting scenarios, the “do not choose the lesser of two evils” argument is a false dilemma.
Finally, the whole discussion is ridiculous and moot, since Clinton is the only evil candidate of the two.
Go Trump Go!
First of all, no person is “an evil,” not even a politician.
It is conceivable that some person could be MORE evil than Hillary. I can’t think of anyone. But if such a person existed, and was running against Hillary, I would vote for Hillary. I believe she wants all Americans dead in four years, and I would vote for her rather than somebody who wanted us all dead in six months.
Donald Trump is a great, public sinner. But he doesn’t want all Americans dead, and gives every sign that, in fact, he loves the country and its inhabitants.
That’s good enough for me. I will vote for the adulterer, and fully expect that he will execute the office of the Presidency in such a way as to thwart the Muslim and Southern Invasion, encourage prosperity, and revive religious liberty. And MAYBE do something about the evil of the “legality” of abortion—which threatens our entire Constitutional order and EVERY human life.
Unless Christ Jesus is on the ballot, the choice will always be the “lesser of two evils”.
But it’s a false dichotomy. Let’s look at the Bible and see what we can find about this issue.
In chapter 5 of the second books of Kings, we find the story of a military officer named Naaman who served the king of Aram. Naaman was widely respected and honored for his military prowess and courage, but he developed leprosy. During some of the raids that Aram made against Israel, an Israeli girl was captured and given to Naaman as a slave. When he was afflicted with leprosy, the slave girl told Naaman about the prophet Elisha, who could heal him.
The king of Aram agreed to send Naaman with gifts to the king of Israel to be healed. He eventually found Elisha and though he became irritated with the way Elisha treated him, he found his faith and the Lord healed him.
When Elisha refused payment for healing Naaman, the officer made two requests of Elisha:
“If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD. But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this.”
Namaan knew that he had encountered the true God and he made a solemn oath that he would only make sacrifices to the God of Elisha. But he also understood that he had a civic duty to his king because of his position. He knew that he would have to not only enter the temple to another god, but he would have to bow to the idol as well. He knew it was an offense against the God of Israel, so he asked for forgiveness.
Now consider this. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says the following to the people of Nazareth when they rejected his message:
“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
How would those who say they cannot vote for “the lesser of two evils” answer Naaman when he asked for forgiveness in advance of bowing to an idol? Is there not an obligation to make choices we would rather not make, and to interact with a culture and society we would rather not interact with?
Every thinking Christian should read the article in the link above.
Jesus will never run for President so we will always only have flawed candidates.
Get off your high horse people and get real.
It’s either Hillary or Trump.
Patriots and those who care about the fate of this country will choose Trump.
How about reading this summation of the vote/no note for Trump?
http://www.jamespatrickriley.com/index.php/religious-spirit/
Ever notice how the anti-America/anti-Trump crowd always cover their faces with their stupid signs. I like the last photo where the photographer sneaked in behind him to get a shot of his snowflake mug.
Anyone scratching his head and fretting over whether to support Trump or Clinton was dropped from a great height onto that head as a small child.
This article is nonsense.
My example is the three greatest kings of ancient Israel.
David: Polygamist and adulterer, had a man killed, didn’t really punish a son for raping his 1/2 sister.
Solomon: Polygamist and adulterer, did not follow God completely but worshiped the gods of his foreign wives
Hezekiah: Polygamist and exhibited the sin of pride, hung out with pagan kings did not completely abolish the idolatry on the high places
Yet these are men the Bible praises as “Good Kings” So would people today refuse to vote for David or Solomon?
Why is this even an issue? The choice is clear.
One Candidate wants the United States to remain a Sovereign Nation with defined Borders and an effective Immigration Policy that does not reward Lawlessness, the other does not.
One Candidate thinks the Constitution is a Living Document and will seat Liberal Justices to the SCOTUS to insure it will be rendered hollow while the other has Pledged to seat Justices such as the Late Justice Scalia who respect the Founders vision and are not considered Activists.
One Respects Religious Liberty and the other despises it.
Those never Trumpers should just off themselves. All they fear is losing Money and Power which is more important to them than the survival of The Republic.
It has worked so wonderfully for the last 2 presidential elections.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. However, I don’t see Donald Trump as evil. Therefore the choice is simple for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
