You missed the point. Moreover you aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.
Sorry, but that is not all evangelism is. 1) The Bible was written when there were really only Catholics and non-Christians. Today, the situation is different. Today, not only do non-Catholic Christians need to be evangelized but even lapsed but baptized Catholics. http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/
I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You've done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t. May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
It's quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate? Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn't it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
If it were self-evident you wouldn't have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet. I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.
Yeah, actually that’s exactly what you’re doing. These repeated angst filled posts are hilarious examples of someone getting upset over something that not only has NOTHING to do with him, but something that won’t be a big deal in the first place.
What's hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man. Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
I'm sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.
I always oppose absurdity wherever I find it. And the belligerence, anger and sheer paranoia expressed in responses to this simple letter are truly absurd.
The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.
True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here. The real reason why I responded is simply this: those attacking the letter are over-reacting and wrong.
Christianity is not being attacked here. The letter writer's method and motive is.
All mail was hand delivered - especially if you were trying to remain secret. Also, be careful of the Wittenberg door analogy. There is ample reason to believe that is a myth.
Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work. You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church? You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.
No. Paul would have used the Roman press to EVANGELIZE if such an open press existed. The Letter to the Romans was a secret one to protect himself and them from the Roman authorities. If, however, Paul could have used the Roman press - if such a thing existed - then he would have used it. I made no contradiction at all.
No you're backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important. Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated "press" as in open publication - not letter carrying. Stop playing fast and loose with the points. If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.
There is nothing reckless about the letter or its distribution. It’s an open letter. Look at the word you’re using here “reckless”. And you say you’re not wringing your hands in angst? Reckless?
Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.
He’s a public figure who openly talks about his faith on TV. There is no logical reason to believe this would offend him. Again, why are wringing your hands in angst over this letter?
Oh I see. So because he is a "public figure" and a Christian one at that, he is not entitled to the same courtesy of your friend. I thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.
No, it isn’t. The use of quote marks is perfectly good simply because the term is in dispute as to its meaning and course.
Everything could be in dispute including his own theology. Let's start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It's patronizing.
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.
The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.
You wrote:
“You missed the point. Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.”
Is that even English? Seriously, what does that even mean? The logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results? What?
“I took a common definition as stated, without regard to any blatant appeals to theology. You’ve done contrawise so the result of your link speaks for itself.”
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
“May is equivocal. Like your responses to this issue.”
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
“It’s quite relevant. If I shout in your ear out of sincerity is that appropriate?”
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
“Again, sincerity is conditioned. If it isn’t it would lead to absurd results as I have demonstrated.”
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
“If it were self-evident you wouldn’t have a number of posters other than me questioning his methodology.”
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
“In abrogation of common principles of man to man speech and the conduct of a gentlemen. Instead, take the easy way out and splash your personal issues on the internet.”
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
“I think one poster described him as a poser. I would agree.”
Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
“What’s hilarious is the lack of spine to face your accuser man to man.”
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
“Instead, hide behind the internet and call the man out. What a waste of human integrity.”
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
“I’m sure you believe everything you read and never question the method and motive.”
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
“The only absurdity is suggesting you take everything at face value and suggesting that sincerity is all that is necessary.”
It is an absurdity for YOU to suggest I take everything at face value and that sincerity is all that it is necessary because that is not what I said or believe. Again, there is no REASON to question the sincerity of the letter nor have you been able to present a single rational reason to doubt the sincerity of this letter. ZERO.
“Christianity is not being attacked here.”
It is on this website - on a regular basis. And I said it was regularly defended here: “True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here.”
“The letter writer’s method and motive is.”
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
“Ah, revisionist Catholic history at work.”
Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO. The Lutheran scholar who first broached this subject was Irwin Iserloh. Remember, he was LUTHERAN - NOT CATHOLIC:
http://www.luther.de/en/tanschl.html
“You can post anywhere as I suggested could have been done. Point missed again.”
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
“You are actually denying that an individual can write a letter to a church?”
No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Incorrect. I clearly have no problems with it at all. You, however, are stating the EXACT opposite of what I actually wrote and trying to pass it off as if I said it.
“No you’re backtracking and implicitly conceding that how something is delivered is important.”
No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
“Furthermore. you misconstrued or rather misstated my original point. I stated “press” as in open publication - not letter carrying.”
No. Press is not publication in any case. Your argument is not making any sense.
“Stop playing fast and loose with the points.”
You really aren’t making any.
“If indeed your are suggesting he would have used open Roman press this would be in contradiction to your point the letter was written in secret and to protect and thus in further contradiction of your point that sincerity is all that mattered.”
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
“Reckless means exactly what it is. Someone publishing an open letter to someoone without having a personal dialogue with them before taking it public. I guess honor means nothing in your world.”
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
“Oh I see. So because he is a “public figure” and a Christian one at that, he is not entitled to the same courtesy of your friend.”
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
2) Yes, a public figure can be addressed in a public way.
3) There’s nothing offensive about the letter, its contents or the fact that it is open.
“I thought this letter writer was of the same body of Christ. I guess not.”
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
“Everything could be in dispute including his own theology.”
Not in his own letter.
“Let’s start putting quotes around everything that will certainly solve the issue. It will also serves to highlight disrespect. It’s patronizing.”
No, it’s merely correct. There is no point to dialogue without a committment toward truth. Claveau presents the truth all the way through the letter.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.”
Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.