The former Goatherder in Chief never met a felon he failed to like…….
A letter a day will keep the Goatherders at bay. For those that read us from officialdom please not the numbers on the bottom right of each page were placed by the Parish Attorney’s Office as my PRR return was fully indexed. First of a 5 part series.
I wonder if Broussard first as a Christian friend tried to get Baroni to humbily and sincerely get before his Creator and Savior to admit his mistake/s for Nick’s redemption.
Or was it to immediately support Nick’s character on the PARISH’s LETTERHEAD to an outer state judge without first addressing Nick’s position of moral wrongdoing and promised change of his life’s values. And if he did, did Nick Baroni turn around and change his life. And did Nick’s experience in 2007 affect Broussard in any redeeming way.
As imperfect creations we all fall into sin, ‘no, no not one of us are deserving of forgiveness but for the saving Grace and Mercy of Christ’.With Christian redemption and forgiveness should come new enlightenment and changes to the good.
It is my hope and prayer that the former situation happened with Nick and that currently Broussard, instead of being smart ass and smug with his Dragonlike fire mouth to the press, will see the LIGHT and one day fall down, not just in private before his Savior but before his peers,and ask for his forgiveness. Thereby becoming a vessel of LIGHT for other men especially politicos to emulate.
If Broussard would and could sincerely do that I would have no hesitance to forgive and speak of his great Christian example.
If Broussard or one of his Christian friends are out there in cyberspace, inquiring minds want to know the TRUTH.
lockemuptight
January 5, 2013 at 9:33 am
Lockemuptight is made of sterner stuff than I, if he can read Broussard’s saccharine grotesquery in support of Baroni and still hold out hope for sincerity, christian “enlightenment” and redemption.
Yes, we all sin and so we should all forgive our fellow fallen, when asked. But let’s not be foolish, either. How do you know when a longtime liar is sincere? How do you know when a longtime criminal is no longer thieving? Confessions are nice, but how about spending a few years spent in a prayer-room closet and then another few quietly doing good works before other Christians designate these high-profile fallen as light-vessels?
If politicos need an example to model, they can look to those who have already truly and permanently changed their lives for the better.
And for goodness sakes don’t confuse a renewed Christian with a TRUTH-teller (as the last line of your comment seemed to do.) Proclaiming to the world you are reborn in Christ, as Baroni and Broussard no doubt felt after their Medjugorge pilgrimage, doesn’t mean one is no longer a deluded maniac or dissimulating weasel. Parading a “transformed life” around the community one has harmed doesn’t make one a de-scaled Saul of Tarsus.
While I respect those who demonstrate spiritual renewal (often after undergoing personal nadirs), experience suggests the god-intoxicated are not necessarily truth-intoxicated. (Which is only to say: they are not Benedictus de Spinoza.)
Admittedly, it sounds pretty assholic to counsel cynicism in the face of those who’ve claimed newfound faith and who have radically changed their lives… but a lifetime of experience has taught me it is warranted. Many of the reborn forgiveness-askers (of all faiths and cults) are no more willing to confront uncomfortable truths than the rest of us.
oyster
January 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm
brilliant critique. It seems That a disproportionate number of Jefferson Parish Politico Mafioso hypocrites visit both Medjugorge and Manresa, and upon their return as the same hypocrites, they remain just as vocal about their renewed hypocrisy.
whitmergate
January 5, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Whitmer, one may observe the elected extortionists visit Medjugorge and Manresa in order to see what they wish to avoid as they conform themselves to the world, right?
The Empire Parish
January 7, 2013 at 8:24 am
Yikes! That’s a hell of a page count, Paw Pa.
Ricardo
January 5, 2013 at 9:57 am
When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he remarked: “This man is a true Israelite. There is no guile in him.” Jn1:47. guile n. insidious cunning; duplicity; artful deception. syn. trickery. See deceit.
William Dwyer
January 5, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“Common Characteristics of Pseudo-Repentance
I have already mentioned some instances of false repentance in the Bible, but let us pursue this matter a little further, so that David’s real repentance can be viewed in contrast to the false repentance of others. Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Saul, who three times before has uttered these same words, “I have sinned . . .” (1 Samuel 15:24, 30; 26:21). What is it about Saul’s “repentance” which falls far short of real repentance? Let us pause to reflect on Saul’s “repentance.”
http://bible.org/seriespage/real-repentance-2-samuel-121-13
(1) Saul’s first response to a prophetic rebuke is silence. I must point out that while Saul may appear to repent in 1 Samuel 15, and again in chapter 26, this “repentance” is both too little and too late. The place repentance should first be found is in chapter 13. There, the Philistines have invaded Israel in force. Saul has but a handful of men, and they are quickly deserting. Although Saul was instructed to wait for Samuel, who would offer the sacrifices (1 Samuel 10:8), he felt time was short and that he could wait no longer. And so Saul offered the burnt offering himself, only to see Samuel arrive just after he had done so. When Samuel rebuked Saul for this act of rebellion against God, Saul sought to defend himself, claiming that he had acted appropriately, given the circumstances. Samuel did not accept Saul’s excuse and rebuked him for his foolishness and disobedience, informing him that it would cost him his kingdom. Saul’s response was silence. Here was a man who had just been told his days as Israel’s king were numbered, but rather than confess his sin, he parted company with Samuel in silence.
(2) Saul’s second response to Samuel’s prophetic rebuke is met with resistance, and then with a reluctant confession. In 1 Samuel 15, Saul is commanded by God through Samuel to annihilate the Amalekites and their cattle as the outworking of divine judgment (15:1-3). Saul partially obeys, keeping back some of the best cattle and sparing the life of Agag, the Amalekite king. When Samuel arrives, Saul approaches him boldly, pronouncing God’s blessing on him, and claiming that he has carried out God’s command (15:13). Hearing the bleating of the sheep that have been spared, Samuel is not impressed by Saul’s greeting. Sensing Samuel’s displeasure, Saul quickly begins to make excuses, laying the blame for his sin off on the people and insisting that the cattle were only kept alive as sacrificial animals.46 Even after Samuel’s rebuke (one which sounds very similar to God’s two-fold rebuke of David in 2 Samuel 7:8-9 and 12:7-8), Saul still denies his guilt, maintaining that he really did “obey the voice of the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:20). Only after Samuel persistently refused to accept his excuses did Saul finally confess that he had sinned in verses 24 and 30. I can only call this “repentance” reluctant repentance.
(3) Saul’s “repentance” fails to take personal responsibility for his sin and seeks to pass off his guilt to others. Like Adam and Eve, Saul sought to pass off the responsibility for his own sin to someone else (compare Genesis 3:11-13). Even as late as verse 24, Saul is still hedging. He tries to convince Samuel that even though he had sinned, he did so under pressure from the people (15:15, 21, 24).
(4) Saul “repents” in an effort to minimize the consequences of his sin. Saul seems to have no interest in the cause of his sin, or in its cure. He is only concerned that his suffering be minimized. He asks Samuel to quickly forgive him, and then to go on (with worship!) as though nothing has happened. He wants Samuel to accompany him and thereby to honor him, so that he does not lose face with the people (15:30). Saul’s “repentance” would better be labeled “damage control.”
(5) Saul’s “repentance” is short-lived. For Saul there is no “fruit worthy of repentance,” no change in attitude or action which lasts. Saul’s “repentance” does not last any longer than a breath mint. As soon as the pressure is off, and the danger seems to have abated, Saul is back to his sin, if not in the same form, in another. In , Saul confessed to David that he had sinned in seeking his life, but had his life not been taken in battle, we have little doubt as to what he would have done to David if given the opportunity. (You will remember that David did not “return” with Saul as he asked here. He knew better!) Saul’s repentance was temporary.
Let us now summarize the sequence of events that resulted in Saul’s pseudo-repentance in 1 Samuel:
Saul seeks to justify his disobedience as though his actions were dictated by the circumstances (a kind of moral “martial law” — 13:11-12).
Saul is silent when it is apparent that God will not accept his excuses (13:15).
Saul seeks to re-define his sin of disobedience, as though it were righteous obedience (15:13).
Saul seeks to put the blame for his sin on the people, seeking also to excuse their “sin” as a desire to worship (15:15).
Saul claims he was seeking to obey God, but was unable to control the people who sinned by keeping some of the animals (while neglecting any mention of his responsibility to kill Agag — 15:20-21).
Saul reluctantly admits to his sin, but still insists that others share in his guilt (15:24).
Saul sought to quickly “repent” and be forgiven, so that he could “worship” (15:25).
Saul sought desperately to minimize the consequences of his sin, so that he would not need to suffer greatly for his sin (15:25-31).”
whitmergate
January 7, 2013 at 8:48 am
Gate: Can’t argue with the possible failure of the complete redemption and rebirth of Saul of the old testament before the birth of Christ.
But after the Passion and voluntary Death on The Cross of Christ things changed from burnt offerings to faithful acknowledgement of the Death and Resurrection of Christ as being justification for our sins provided one in sincere humility and sorrow confesses and does not use such gift of Grace and Mercy in a self serving way just to intentionally keep sinning in the same manner.
The Saul of the new testament or Saint Paul was a true reborn person who once murdered Christians but was redeemed and converted into an apostle traveling the world preaching the “Good News” and who suffered and willfully died for his beliefs and Faith in his Savior.
Therein lies the question – which only Our Savior Lord can search the heart and soul of sinners for their truthful intent and sincerity to want to change and develop a personal relationship with Our Savior in order to walk a more Christian life. Perfection is not possible but its the continuing sincere desire to keep improving and modifying man’s natural habits and desires connected to the physical world to truly change and desire, be more attune to and into the Spiritual world with greater Faith.
I can tell all unbelievers in cyberspace that until one is truly broken and desiring a rebirth you will not truly experience it just by saying the words without the feeling of the heart in support.
An example of a typical characteristic or thought pattern of an unreborn or pseudo-reborn person would be the persistence of the natural man’s thoughts when experiencing a tragedy, trial, suffering, etc. by asking – ‘ Hey Lord I’m a pretty decent person why has his happened to me’.
The true reborn person attune to the Spirit and Faith would respond to the same trials, sufferings with the Spiritual observation and acknowledgement that the Lord is sovereign and His Will be done not ours. He or she might say,’The Spirit, or the Helper Christ left us with in His absence, sometimes knows whats best for us more than we know ourselves’. A followup question may be, ‘ What can I learn Spiritually or how much Faith can I build by going through these trials or suffering?’ See James, Chapter 1 verses 1-6
Another telling characteristic of a true reborn person is there is usually a life changing testimony he/she is very willing and obligated to share ( just as St. Paul did many times in his epistles to the early churches). He/She admits usually in a story of circumstances that at a certain time he/she humbled himself greatly before the Lord and surrendered his will to Christ and thereafter was suddenly or over a period of time changed Spiritually.
Finally, unless one is reborn it is hard for the typical person to understand and I was that way for many years myself.
Hope this helps interested Slabbed readers begin to understand and if there are any readers reborn please help me out here and share your comments..
lockemuptight
January 7, 2013 at 2:30 pm