Posted on 02/04/2006 4:36:14 PM PST by leadpenny
For the last time, I said I'm not sure if Rudy has repented, I just said that he said in an interview that he has changed since prostate cancer and 9/11 and so I'm using that to say he MIGHT really be changed. I tried twice last night to say we'll just have to agree to disagree but you keep arguing. Why couldn't you have just done the polite thing and say the same thing. Here is Billy Graham again:
"Q: Where in the Bible is the verse that says it is human to make mistakes but it's divine to forgive them? What does it mean? I know I need to forgive people who hurt me but I don't know how. — K.J.
"A: Dear K.J.,
You're probably thinking of the old saying that it is human to err but it is divine to forgive. It means simply that when we make mistakes or do wrong we are acting like human beings&mdash:but when we forgive others, then we are acting like God, who is always willing to forgive us.
Although this saying isn't found in the Bible, it does summarize an important truth from the Bible—or actually two important truths. The first is a truth about ourselves: We are sinners, and we always tend to do wrong. As the Bible says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
The other truth is a truth about God: God loves us and stands ready to forgive us when we truly turn to Him in repentance and faith. How do we know this? We know it because God sent His Son into the world to make our forgiveness possible. By His death on the cross, Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins—totally and completely. The Bible says that in Christ "we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14).
I invite you to give your life to Jesus Christ today. By a simple prayer of faith, confess your sins to Him and ask Him to forgive you, and He will. Then ask Him to help you forgive others even as He has forgiven you—freely and fully."
You can believe the way you want about forgiveness and I'll believe the way I feel is right, which is also the exact same way Billy Graham believes. I will not be dragged back into this anymore. If you wish to argue any more, please go contact Billy Graham and argue with him. If you think you know more than Billy Graham, then not only are judgmental then you are also arrogant. Can you really be forgiven if you can't forgive?
I'm not saying I didn't beleive her.
My point was, she really is a nasty person.
She just isn;t really nice or friendly.
I have no reason to doubt her integrity or her honesty, Rudy has never ever said anything that would cast her statements in doubt.
He has gone far to make it clear she wasn't lying.
I just don't like her on a personal level, I met her, and for no reason, she was just nasty, she also was hostile to her staff (this was during a law and order shoot).
I have my differances with Rudy on policy, Ms. Hanover, is a different story, she is just downright mean for no reason and nasty.
The issue is not whether forgiveness is a good thing.
The issue is whether we should trust Rudy Giuliani because he had 'repented' and we should 'forgive' him because we 'aren't God'. You went off on a crazy binge about how Rudy was born again and we should just trust him because we shouldn't be 'judgemental'.
Never said he had repented, said he might have based on an interview he did and that I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Anyways, we both probably got a little too nasty with each other and escalated this more than we should have and I'm sorry for my part in that. Let's move on and I'm sure next time we run across each other we'll be bashing Democrats and liberals or agreeing on something else.
Thanks. I couldn't help but notice that it took on all the attributes of a "virtual pothole", with everyone (except you :) crossing the street to avoid stepping anywhere near it.
Sometimes I feel like the kid in "The Emperor's New Clothes." I mean, pointing out the obvious is so bloody easy. Child’s Play, to coin a phrase.
Nobody has a right to your trust. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we have a duty to trust everyone and Rudy Giuliani has done nothing to earn the trust of cultural conservatives.
My rhetorical question to the purveyors of "cheap grace" (rhetorical, because I am afraid of what they might actually answer -- I don't know that my stomach could take it!), would be, exactly where do you draw the line? Or do you draw it at all?
How about OBL? He claims to be following the will of God, as best as he is able to understand it. Shall we therefore "forgive him"?
This is strong stuff, not for infantile "we LOVE to FORGIVE" happyblessers, "so heavenly minded that they're no earthly good." But it is IMPORTANT stuff, and while my question may be rhetorical, the real-world, real-life implications are far from academic.
Anyone else old enough to remember "The Firesign Theater"? They had one album -- I forget which one -- in which they'd compressed the history of Western Civilization into one hilarious half-album.
When I see these "forgiveness nazis" ("TM" :) stalking the threads, demanding that we annoint Saint Rudi Grand Exalted Ruler of These United States -- because he MIGHT have "changed", and we must "forgive", I am reminded of a line from that album.
In fact, it's ringing in my ears!
In that line, the Conquistadors are conquering what was later to become Latin America. To capture the essence of that era in five seconds or less, they had a guy with a classic "Father O'Flannery" voice say, "Domini, Domini, Domini... you're all Catholic now!"
If you've ever heard that album, you know what I'm talking about -- and you're chuckling as you recall it, even as you feel the bile rise in your throat as you realize the same kind of "annointing" going on with "Brother Rudi" today.
Of course, I don't think that all of these people really have the high exalted opinion of Brother Rudi and his Magical Might-Be-Changed Quasi-Repentence-Thing.
Nope. I just don't buy it. I think that some -- if not most of those folks are simply doing the same "partisan hack" thing that was old hat in the Soviet Politburo. Go with the flow. Find out what The Party decides is best for The Party, and then echo The Party Line.
No matter how silly, how contradictory, how absurd, if it's for "the good of The Party", then, by golly, GO WITH IT!
Thing is, I'm having a rough time finding "chapter and verse" in the New Testament advising people to engage in that sort of behavior.
In fact, about the only reference I can find, is a warning, AGAINST engaging in "party spirit" (and, no, they're not talking about "keggers").
To whose who are innocently caught up in the "Party Spirit", I suggest you check your own spirit. Even if you want to look at it in a "merely" secular perspective, can anyone rationally argue that absolute obeisance to "The Party" can in ANY way be construed as an American trait? Or Constitutional?
Reality check, folks. "Party Loyalty" benefits ONLY "The Party", and those who are in bed with "The Party."
Patriotism does NOT equate to "Party Loyalty". Not unless we're living in the "Former Soviet Union", or the present PRC, or Cuba, or some similar regime, run by, of, and for the Party apparatchiks.
Why? Is Billy Graham endorsing "Brother Rudi" too? LOL!
Or are you just trying to play a game of "Let's you and him fight"?
You dug yourself into a hole, you can't dig your way out, so you invoke the name of Billy Graham and then stick your head under your wing waiting for all the Bad Men to Go Away?
Pathetic.
I suppose he figures that with a "critical mass" of accolytes (for all we know, his handlers don't even give him the breakdown between paid "consensus-makers" and naive "Party-Wannabes")... he probably figures that he's "popular" enough to pull it off.
The silence from the Democrats... sheesh. The guy may very well be so arrogant that he interprets it as their fear of tangling with him! He might construe their strategic silence as "fearful trepidation".
This, of course, is something they would consider the greatest gift of all. A magnificently flawed opponent, so blinded by his pride and arrogance, that he honestly believes that when his opponents are merely biding their time, they are actually quivering in fear.
And yeah, I do think this scenario would be consistent with his personality type.
So the big question would be, are his handlers really that stupid, as to allow things to head in that direction, or, are they quietly in the employ of "others"? I'd imagine it would hardly be the first time a "double agent" was employed in the political arena, if that turns out to be the case.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall...
This is gonna be one heck of an "interesting" campaign cycle. (Hey, "nauseating" and "interesting" are not mutually exclusive, are they? :)
Heh..........nice juxtapositioning of descriptive words.
Thanks to you, I'll always think of Rudy that way from now on-----"nauseating" and "interesting" (sigh).
No question, the best way to get an idea out there is to pose a thoughtful question.
A statement of fact might be easily dismissed......but hanging a question out there---in mid-air---is not as easily forgotten.
Rudy doesn't listen very well.
None of his handlers would dare suggest that there might be any skeletons in his closet a la Gary Hart. If they did they would be unemployed handlers.
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.