The Lesser of Three Evils

I will first digress and cover an issue that after repeated readings, I now know why only one set of sins (the matter of Uriah the Hittite) is covered negatively in the assessment of David the King. I've read this passage a lot, but always failed to notice one thing. David repented prior to being punished. Now that we've covered this great difference (with Uriah, David repented after being found out), on to show this matter applies to voting, and Ron Paul.

"David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite."

I can't remember if the Facebook group's discussions are visible to the public, so I apologize if you can't see it, not being a member of the group, but one of the key quotes is this one:

"When choosing the lesser of two evils, you still are choosing evil."

Der.

I don't pretend to be an idealist, unless you take the monergist view that sin was ordained and this world we are living in is actually the ideal (big rabbit hole, not going there now). I speak more of the idealism of Joni Mitchell (love her) when she penned "Woodstock" & "We've got to get back to the garden." We can't get back to the garden, so pining for it is more than useless, it's sinful and dangerous. Joni is right that we are "caught in the Devil's bargain," but the lyrical idealism of retreating the path that got us there is a terrible folly. God blocks the path that we once took, when we take the wrong road. This is what the flaming sword is all about.

The words "only evil continually" are words used by God when referring to the thoughts of men. Also that our righteousness "is as filthy rags." It's clear in the word of God that God doesn't think so much of even our best efforts. They are laughably corrupt when measured against the motivations of a righteous God. The tedious assertion that we will make only a choice for good really condemns the chooser as self righteous. In view of the fact that we possess no righteousness other than that imparted to us by Christ, we'd do well to stop blustering in this way.

David's choice costs the lives of 70,000 men and untold women and children. This is the lesser of three evils that David picked. It doesn't even cost him more than 50 shekels personally, it costs his people. David builds an altar to God on land that he purchased from Araunah, with money he insisted Araunah take from him. This place is not insignificant, it is later memorialized by the construction of a Temple. The very place God's pestilence stopped is the site of the "merciful" end of the lesser of three evils that David chose at the offering of God. The Threshing Floor of Araunah (Ornan) the Jebusite is the Temple Mount.

Never come to me and say "I will not choose one of two evils" because you're holier than that. Choose. If you don't, I believe the condemnation of the "Lukewarm" is upon you and I would also equate you with servant of the parable, who buried his talent in the dirt, not wishing to risk losing it. In the end, even that was taken from him. Be salt instead, perfection awaits us after eternity begins, not here.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, and you won't vote for the best conservative alternative because he's not "good enough" then I have no time for you.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Things my dog taught me, and Obama Care

Valena (may she rest in peace) my AKC registered Husky (miss her) taught me a few things.

Which is why I knew that Obama care was going to pass.

What Valena learned about me, taught me to watch body language and behavior more than listen to words, when such inputs were available. After a point in time Val didn't get excited by certain cues unlikely to produce the desired result. If she wanted to squeeze out the door and run the neighborhood or if she thought I/we were going outside and wanted to come along, she watched my feet. If my feet were pointed in the right direction or giving little subtle clues that I was going out, she got excited. In the meantime she lay in the appropriate doorway designed to give as wide a view of the living room possible, with her head between her front legs and her eyes followed everyone around the room.

Without going into great detail I stopped listening and started watching a long time ago, hence I knew that "National Health Care Reform" was going to pass. I've been using this as my cue for becoming more political in my commentary. Over the next few days and weeks, expect me to proffer my solutions to the problem. Nationalized Health care is not the solution, it's the problem. How do we fix it?

I've never been fond of the "taking back" talk in politics. Who were we, after all, "taking" what, "back" from? We've reached that point now. Battle lines are drawn. There is an "us" and there is a "them." Good guys. Bad guys. The Bad Guys have America now, unless you think the "Parliamentarian" will rule against the reconciliation process (strongly possible but probably not probable) and subsequently that vacuous rubber stamp whose time has come, Vice President Joe Biden, doesn't overrule the Parliamentarian.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Vermont Political Action on Polygyny? $60.00. Winning the battle? Priceless.

The goal is to hit the ground running. The "Pay Pal" button is on the right. To that end I visited with the Vermont Secretary of State's office on 26 Terrace Street in Montpelier.

The likelihood of drafting a bill, introducing it into Vermont's legislature and gaining passage prior to the end of the current legislative session is very low. It's probably better than me winning the lottery, provided I buy a lotto ticket, but not much better.

The best way to gain legal status right now for polygyny in Vermont is to strike, through court action, the word "two" from the current marriage law of Vermont, as altered through SB-115. For that I need a test case, and I need donations. Pure and simple.

As a lobbyist in the state of Vermont, I can solicit money to any amount, and must report such donations at the time when I reach a spending level of $500.00 related to my lobbying activity. It costs a minimum of $60.00 to register for that activity, so I will be registering when I get $60.00 in donations which I am actively soliciting beginning NOW.

When I reach $500.00 in spending I am required to file forms with the State of Vermont detailing financial activity. That activity I will keep track of publicly, either here, or on some other public site.

This is your chance to be serious about legal polygamy which would detach polygamy from the myths of "child abuse," pedophilia and rape. I know you're out there, I know you fear persecution. I know you have in some cases, already been persecuted. If this had happened two years ago, and had this action been taken, such as I am taking right now, YFZ could have been averted.

Beyond money, I need legal help, preferably from inside Vermont.

Beyond legal help, I need a test case, preferably again, a "trio" or better from inside Vermont that wishes to attempt to register their marriage legally through the state of Vermont. This would involve going as soon as possible to Vermont and asking for a marriage license which would be denied based on the fact that it is to a man already married.

I will not promote a polyandry as a test case.

I will not promote a group marriage as a test case.

I will not promote a bisexual union of more than one woman with a man as a test case.

This effort will be to promote the union of one man with more than one woman legally in a relationship that is stated to be heterosexual.

The time is now. If you don't join with me and support this effort, you aren't serious about protecting polygyny or your families. It's entirely possible that if action is taken quickly, the first polygynous union could occur before the end of this year.

While the effort is ongoing to gain court approval, there will be an effort beginning in 2010 in Vermont's annual legislative session to strike the word "two" from our marriage law. That stands less of a chance of approval, but will gain attention for the cause.

I'm willing to go on point. Support me or don't complain about persecution. This is certainly one of the main reasons I have been moved to Vermont by the LORD our God. I cannot divine his complete purpose, but for me to enter the fray at this point I have little doubt of God's purpose. The outcome I pray, and I hope you will pray as well, will be in keeping with his best intents for us as believers.

I'm entirely willing to believe if you don't support me personally in this cause, you still support legalization of polygyny, but you would have to support someone. If that person is not me, I really think I should do less banging of my head against the wall on this issue. You, the reader, who alleges to support polygyny, I cannot regard as serious.

So support ME, in this cause NOW, or support SOMEONE and if you find that someone, let ME know who they are so that I can in turn support them. Support no one and I have to regard you collectively as dilettantes and ultimately cowards, at this moment of historic opportunity.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What did I tell you?

On me!

"[If the Court accepts gay and lesbian Appellant's argument for] separating the [marriage] statutes from their language and their historical foundations, the groundwork will be laid for other groups to claim the right to marry. The most obvious are polygamists and proponents of group marriage. Following the arguments of Appellants, such persons would have strong claims to fit within the 'purposes' of the marriage statutes."

Before the Supreme Court, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell as found in the Rutland Herald.

Contact me now if you wish to start a group to push for the legalization of Polygamy in Vermont.

More →

Sphere: Related Content